text:
Is the "meal plan" chiefly a North American thing?
I've noticed that this idea of a "meal plan" among students is pretty common in the US. Usually this involves:

Some amount of money (e.g. "flex dollars") that can be spent on any food (or sometimes even other things) that the student desires, provided that the student spends this money on certain on-campus locations.
The student may get a fixed number of "meal swipes" for eating at the dining hall.
This is all paid for in-advance by students, often as part of a "room and board" fee.
Some universities even require students to purchase such a plan if the student lives in certain parts of university housing, even at some urban universities where there might be more dining options. (I have heard students claim that it would cost the same amount of money as a meal plan to eat at neighbourhood restaurants.)

I have also seen some version of this in Canadian schools: for instance, there was a complaint circulating about poor dining hall management at Memorial University, which alludes to a required meal plan. Generally speaking, as a student, it seems that such meal plans are chiefly used by undergraduates, although I've also seen graduate students eat at the dining hall.
I suspect that this system is specific to North America, although I'm not completely sure. For instance, I saw this document, which stated that the Hebrew University doesn't carry meal plans. I've noticed that university cafeterias in Hong Kong make students pay for food with actual cash when they get their meal, even if there are occasional loyalty schemes (of the same variety that might appear at any fast-food restaurant) or discounted items (where things are much cheaper than they would be off-campus). From a quick glance, HKU and HKUST's housing websites appear to make no mention of any sort of "meal plan". (Meanwhile, the University of Chicago's housing website has a page for residential dining.)
Thus: is the meal plan system (where students pay in advance for dining hall meals and potentially other on-campus perks) a chiefly North American thing? For obvious reasons, I would assume that it would be more common in heavily non-commuter universities (which perhaps dominate the US and Canada more than the rest of the world), but I'm wondering if this is generally true, even if we take the commuter/non-commuter thing into account.

Would you explain why this question has something to do with Academia?

@scaaahu: I assumed student life conventions might be on topic. (If anything, I was unsure if something more relevant to undergrads was on-topic here, but I saw some questions about undergrad admissions here.) That said, I wasn't sure, and I'll delete the question if it's blatantly off-topic.

Your question is not undergrad only. I wasn't questioning that. I am unsure whether it's blatantly off-topic either. My explanation is that most universities are in college towns. Eating at the dining hall is probably the most convenient way. "Meal plan" probably can help save money. In other locations (other than North America), you can eat outside the campus. My guess.

Who gives the money for meal? The government? The university?

I must admit based on this answer, I do not quite understand what a "meal plan" is. Therefore, while I might be from a place that does not have "meal plans", I do not feel sufficiently informed to respond. If the "meal plan" involves "some amount of money", is that not "real money", or based upon "real money"? Or, if you just mean that the "real money" (as in, cash, or generally (outside of campus) accepted cards) is not directly used on campus, but rather just to recharge some card that is then used on campus, isn't that a rather superficial operational difference that may differ by ...

... university)? I am particularly confused as you seem to describe "a complaint circulating about poor dining hall management at Memorial University" as a sign that there is "some version of [meal plans]" somewhere. Does that mean any on-campus food supply run by the university or an attached organization implies the existence of a "meal plan"? In that case, most universities I have visited so far had a "meal plan", even though, at the same time, all of them had to be paid with very "real money" (coins and banknotes). Would you mind to clarify what constitutes a "meal plan", please?

@O.R.Mapper The Meal Plan Overview at University of Iowa is probably a typical example. To the OP, would you confirm?

@scaaahu: yep, this is what I'm thinking of. I'm going to put in some edits to clarify this.

@scaaahu: Mhm, I see. From the linked walk-in prices list it looks like buying such a meal plan in advance is (at least at that particular university) the only way to get a discount (for being a student, for instance)? Is that a typical trait of a meal plan? Or, conversely, does the presence of student discounts at on-campus food locations imply something like an implicit "meal plan"?

@O.R.Mapper Frankly, I don't know the answer. Last time I ate food by "meal plan" was long time ago. I had the vague memory that dorm food was not tasty. I'll leave this to someone more knowledgable to answer this question.

@scaaahu: Fair enough. I thank the OP for the clarifications so far and keep asking for more clarifications, as I suspect the variety in systems for this around the world is so vast that lots of similar systems that might or might not be interpreted as "something like meal plans" exist. (And, in particular, some of these systems may not have a "catchy name" like "meal plan" in the respective places, but they may only exist in the form of implicit descriptions ("You have to pay ...¤ ... a part of that is used to fund food supply. You are entitled to ... free meals each semester.").)

@O.R.Mapper: come to think of it, I know of Australian students who were provided with breakfast along with their dorm room. If I take CU's definition of the meal plan in relation to HUJI, this also counts as one. But the main thing I'm interested in is whether not paying an advance lump sum for regular meals is really as common outside of North America as I expect it to be. As for the Memorial University case, the Imgur poster states on the second image that because they lived in residence, they had to buy a meal plan and eat at the dining hall.

I edited out "undergraduate" to prevent it from close votes.

As a student from the US currently in the UK, it was my impression that the meal plan in the US was a way to sucker students into paying more money by making it mandatory, forcing the students to buy more meals than they normally use, and making the price more than the quality of food would reflect. (The meal plan at Iowa linked above is the best price I've seen by a US university.) In contrast, my limited experience with dining halls in the UK is positive, in that they are giving fair prices (3-5 pounds a meal). I am very interested in whether this occurs elsewhere in the world.

There is also meal plans in some of the halls the National University of Singapore and it's mandatory: "Students staying in the Halls are required to subscribe to meal plans."

The idea between behind mandatory meal plans to make sure students aren't eating ramen only for the entire term, and in many US dorms, there aren't enough kitchens available for students to cook for themselves.

I was on a meal plan as a Ph.D. graduate student in the US, so I don't understand the rationale behind closing this question.

I am also about to be a PhD student with a meal plan in the US, so I think it is still relevant to graduate students.

This is not unique to North America and the idea of a meal plan exists in the UK. In the UK halls (i.e., dorms) are either self-catered or catered. Catered halls usually provide breakfast and dinner and in some cases either lunch, a boxed lunch, or points that can be spent on campus.

I am still not entirely sure about the boundary of "meal plans", but, based on the discussion in the comments, I will answer based on this partial question by the OP:

I'm interested in is whether not paying an advance lump sum for regular meals is really as common outside of North America

As far as I know, German universities usually have no meal plans, if that means signing up (let alone being obliged to sign up) for a contract that equals a certain amount of vouchers specifically for getting meals (and possibly other paid-for services).
Usually, on-campus lunchrooms are run by student service organizations that are separate entities from the universities. These organizations are partly subsidized from tax money, and partly funded based on a solidarity fee that has to be paid by every enrolled student every semester (e.g. €60). As a result, meals in such on-campus lunchrooms (which often really just offer lunch, and only from Mon to Fri) can be bought at a "normal" price (comparable to very cheap restaurants, e.g. around €4 to €5 for one main dish) by guests, while anyone connected to the university gets a certain discount (e.g. there might be two discount levels, one for students (e.g. roughly €2 to €2.50 for one main dish), one for employees). This buying of meals, however, is spontaneous and can be repeated as often as desired, i.e. there is not a fixed amount of previously ordered coupons, and the transaction for the discounted price takes place only then and there in the lunchroom.
So, in a way, students have to pay beforehand, but it's not a payment that is 1:1 mapped to meals. Your mileage may vary on whether to consider that a "meal plan"-like system.
The prices are examples that fit for some German universities, but certainly not all. I have added them to convey a rough idea of the extent of discounts and total payments.

There is no such thing either in my native France or in Japan where I am currently located. You pay for your on-campus meals either in cash or using a prepaid e-money card, and it is certainly not required to eat on campus. (I suspect that introducing such a requirement would lead to massive protests.)

I think forcing students to spend part of their money on campus would be illegal where I live (and in most of the western world). I'm actually kind of surprised this is still going on in the US, especially given the US protests against the truck system in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

This seems a little bit like it should be a comment.

Welcome to Academia SE. Would you care to expand your answer? I agree with @O.R.Mapper that in its present state, it is more suitable as a comment.


text:
How to best present a PhD application when moving from professional work without a masters or honours degree?
I have been invited by a potential supervisor to apply for a PhD scholarship based on some research I have done in a professional role. I have a history of presenting this kind of work at mixed academic/professional conferences in the past, and have written some of my research up for professional associations and as whitepapers.
In my opinion, the work that I have done may well revolutionise my particular field and there is a lot of interesting applications I have been able to articulate, but I feel having it as part of a doctoral thesis will help push these ideas into the mainstream.
However, I am concerned, as when I did my Bachelors degree I kind of messed around for my first few years and haven't got a strong background in actual academia. While I did clean up my act and finished with a high enough average grade to continue onto an honours year, I chose to work instead.
The application says:

Minimum admission requirements to the PhD program at [University name redacted]: a relevant Bachelors degree with at least upper second-class honours, or a Masters degree with a significant research component, or equivalent.

Given my ordinary academic history, how can I best demonstrate my ability to perform research and give the best chance to be successful?

Your next step is quite clear. Discuss this with your potential supervisor. That person will be aware of university policies and practices, and could perhaps set up another meeting with the relevant staff.
Be proactive.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Does repeated retakes of a test with average score of all attempts allow manipulation?
I am working with a computerized Course Management System which provides many options for scoring a test or activity - one of them is "Average of All Attempts". I thought that was: 1) a bad idea, 2) would not be able to be manipulated. But I just saw a student repeatedly get just one question wrong (whether intentionally or not) before finally getting all correct, and it migrated the average upward from the first poor attempt. So, students can "adjust" their own results with this method. Not sure if they know it or not, but I would bet they are smarter than I am! (Or less naive.)
Has anyone else seen this? I think it would be mitigated by allowing only two attempts. Why would a Course Management System allow unlimited (or many) repeat attempts and an Average Score grading method? Maybe students should be designing the CMS, it would be more fair - perhaps more ruthless!

I have never encountered a computerized exam in which you have an unlimited number of consecutive attempts on the same questions and for which your final score is the average of all attempts.  This does seem to be gameable as you describe as well as perhaps in other ways: depending on the format of the answers, I could imagine many tests in which one could eventually deduce all the correct answers with little or no knowledge of the material being tested.
This does not seem to be a very meaningful or rigorous way to run an examination.  I have never given an online examination but am rather familiar with online homework: there we often allow unlimited multiple attempts (except if the question is true / false or multiple choice, but most are not) and simply record the best score.  But the goal there is not to assess the students as much as to get them to do their homework.  Anyway, all such systems I know of certainly feature an easily "togglable" maximum number of attempts.  My feeling is that an instructor who sets up an exam as you describe is either unusually naive or -- more likely -- knows what they are doing and has reasons to want or live with an exam which can be gamed in this way.
Nowadays I and many other academics have to periodically take little computerized exams in which we show ourselves to be familiar with current university policies (ethics, security...) Many of my colleagues are indeed trying to get through them as quickly as possible and trying to minimize the amount of time they have to spend reading background material (or worse, watching in-house informational videos).  Even these exams are not gameable to the extent that you describe.

Thank you. "Gamification" seems to be the new buzzword, so why not apply it to education as well? I like how in other questions here people have said things like, "Who would you prefer? The person who failed over and over, or the A student?" I guess I would prefer someone dogged enough to keep trying, and with the breadth given by failure. (Lincoln?) I have never had much respect for students who get A's with no real understanding.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What is generally expected on language exams for humanities students?
Graduate students (at least in the US) often have to take foreign language competency exams, particularly if they are in the humanities. In things like classics or Biblical studies, I might expect a higher standard. But what is the standard generally required of students outside of such areas (but still within the humanities) in the US?
Since these are PhD programmes, I would normally expect a high standard (e.g. at least beyond the second year level in a good undergraduate programme). But purely anecdotally, I've reason to doubt this:

I know one person who was a native Japanese speaker and who used Japanese and German (or possibly English, via some exemption for foreign ESL speakers) to meet her language requirements, but who claims that her German isn't very good.
I know of a first-year student in art history who is using Italian and Chinese to meet such requirements. His comments about his Italian revision and experience suggested that he was at a fairly low level,1 and his attempts to write or converse in Chinese were, speaking as a native Chinese speaker, not particularly competent. Apparently he had to take his Italian exam shortly upon entering grad school.

While perhaps I'm just being too presumptuous of other people, this seems to suggest that the idea I have of language competency exams requiring people to comfortably read something like untranslated Foucault easily is wrong.

1. From his comments, it seemed that I know at least as much French as he does Italian, yet I have trouble reading French scholarly texts with confidence.

It seems likely that this would vary significantly by discipline and individual department.  In my discipline (mathematics), most commonly the student has to translate a page or two of mathematics from the language into English.  Sometimes they are given dictionaries and/or a lot of time to do so.  Speaking from experience on both sides, this is not too stringent. If you are asking how much language proficiency is guaranteed by passing such a requirement, I would say: not much.

Note also that the examinations may well not be billed as "foreign language competency exams".  In my PhD program for instance, it was called a "foreign language reading exam".

Maybe retitle the question to ask about exams in humanities, so it gets read by the right people.  In STEM fields, reading technical papers, at least is languages closely related to ones you know, is much easier than being good at conversation or reading fiction.

I'll give a sketch of an answer, from the perspective of someone at a top 10 university in the U.S.
Recently, I had a consultation about potentially doing German coursework. It was also suggested I take a course for learning to read German that was intended for graduate students who needed to meet their reading competency requirements, particularly since I had placed (however accurately) into second-year German. The reading course presumes no initial German knowledge of its students. Moreover, the course only takes up the time of a single term. I would be thus inclined to say that the reading exams cannot be possibly so difficult, but I have a lot of trouble reading samples for the German one without more knowledge.
Since the quality of my French is less suspect, I'll use that as an example. Looking at old reading exams for French at my university, I would probably be able to pass (or at least not fail abysmally), and I probably have at least the knowledge of almost two year's of college-level French. But what really helps is that I have a good chunk of knowledge about grammatical forms (so I can look at a verb and guess its infinitive easily and more experience with vocabulary than I do in German.
So perhaps the language competency exams, at least when based on more humanities-oriented texts, really aren't that difficult, but only in the sense that a student who knows a lot of grammar and has some good experience of vocabulary should be able to survive.

I have a comment, not an answer, but I don't think it will fit in the little bitty space very well.
I'm not qualified to write an answer because I never studied humanities.

I know one person who was a native Japanese speaker and who used Japanese and German (or possibly English, via some exemption for foreign ESL speakers) to meet her language requirements, but who claims that her German isn't very good.

There are a couple of possible explanations of this.  Perhaps her humility makes her say her German isn't very good.  Perhaps she is comparing her German with her English, and her German is not as strong as her English.
If she were doing a PhD in Germany, do you think her English is strong enough that she could use it to pass a foreign language competency exam?  If so, then I think her department did the right thing by declaring her competent.

I know of a first-year student in art history who is using Italian and Chinese to meet such requirements. His comments about his Italian revision and experience suggested that he was at a fairly low level, and his attempts to write or converse in Chinese were, speaking as a native Chinese speaker, not particularly competent. Apparently he had to take his Italian exam shortly upon entering grad school....   From his comments, it seemed that I know at least as much French as he does Italian, yet I have trouble reading French scholarly texts with confidence.

I don't speak Italian, but I speak Spanish and French.  I have noticed that Spanish is often more straightforward than French.  I suspect that Italian is pretty straightforward too.
Keep in mind the context -- the U.S. is such an overwhelmingly unilingual place and culture.

seems to suggest that the idea I have of language competency exams requiring people to comfortably read something like untranslated Foucault easily is wrong

My guess is that your idea is wrong.  (I wish it weren't.)


text:
Dropped out of maths PhD - options for later on?
Over the last month or so I wrote a couple of posts about me worrying a lot about the way my mathematics PhD supervisor was dealing with things. Looking back on these my worries were unjustified and I have since done a lot of reflection upon what went wrong with my studies which made me feel that way. I decided to withdraw from my studies and move back home for a good while to re-evaluate my interests and think about where I want to be in life. I withdrew because:

the PhD was heavily analysis-based, whereas my background was much more towards the applied side (so the jump turned out to be too great for me in the end), and the choice of my PhD topic was based more on what I felt I "ought to know" rather than what I enjoyed and what I was already good at (out of the PhD offers I had at the time, the one I went for was probably the least suitable for me in terms of background, and this choice was exacerbated by the fact I was under pressure to choose a PhD programme during my final year of my undergraduate course)
the above led to me finding it difficult to adapt to a routine and I was rapidly losing interest in the topic which had a very negative effect on my work ethic and research progress
I was experiencing mental health difficulties and having trouble looking after myself
the above were leading to my supervisors to worry a lot about my progress and so my main supervisor suggested that perhaps I withdraw from the studentship.

For now, my plan is to take a pause from academia and consider doing some teaching work in the meantime (or getting some other real-world experience), whilst being able to rectify any personal issues. So far I feel this has been a really positive move and I have been able to think much more clearly about my future and where my heart is. Furthermore, during my (limited) experience of being a research student, I learned a lot about what happens in a typical mathematics department, what research work usually involves, and what responsibilities a PhD student and his/her supervisor has.
I feel that there is a possibility that I would like to return to PhD studies in the future (I'm not ruling it out, at least), but with much more care and consideration towards the subject area and my suitability for research work.
However, I am aware that having dropped out of a PhD already might potentially hurt my chances if I consider reapplying later on - but I feel my justification is sound, and if I do consider applying for a PhD again in a year or two, then I can explain the situation to potential institution/supervisor and hopefully they would understand.
So my question is - would having withdrew from a PhD programme that wasn't a very good match for my mathematical background and strengths disadvantage me if I wanted to consider doing a PhD later on in something that was much more up my street? Furthermore, if I decide to take this route, would it be worth returning to my original institution where I know the faculty really well and have a good track record with them? (I obtained a 1st class Masters degree from there and was given numerous awards during my studies.)

I decided to withdraw. A decision has been made. It's time to lay back and enjoy your time off.  Keep worrying about it won't do you good.


text:
Is it unethical to cite a paper or book that you have never looked at?
Suppose I see that Book X is cited by several papers with reference to some particular Fact Y. I wish to cite Fact Y. As far as I know, Book X is the only reference for Fact Y.
I have never looked at Book X. Nonetheless, I cite it like this:
'Fact Y' (see Book X)
My question is: Is this ethical, given that I've never looked at Book X?
More context for my question. I am NOT asking whether this is good scientific practice. I am NOT asking how a good scientist should actually go about citing Fact Y. I am NOT asking if this could undermine your credibility as a scientist.
Instead, I am asking this question because it seems to be a somewhat-common practice. And moreover, as far as I know, no scientist has ever been issued even an official rebuke (much less fired) for engaging in such practice. This would suggest to me that this practice is not considered to be unethical.
Of course, it is not binary as to whether a practice is unethical. But I would simply like to know whether the academic community in general considers this to be even a mildly unethical practice. Or if it is perhaps very slightly unethical, but not a big deal. Or if it is not in the least bit unethical.

Would you trust wikipedia as a reliable primary source?

@scrappedcola: I don't understand what the relevance of your question is. But my answer to your question would be "no".

You may find the following question helpful: Do you need to read a whole article before citing it?

Wikipedia is a source of secondary information that there is no guarantee of verified authenticity. All you have is a guess that book X mentions fact Y, without actually doing your homework that it is true. Are you willing to base your reputation on an unverified "fact" that may be completely out of context or incorrect?

@MadJack: Thanks for that link. Before writing this question, I had actually taken a look at that question. My question is related, but it is definitely different.

@scrappedcola: I have written an 'Addendum' in response to your comment.

An early draft of my thesis had a bit along the lines of "... X et. al are often cited as the originators of fact Y ..." while I tried to get hold of a fifty year old paper. With a footnote rather than a bibliographic entry giving the particulars of the publication. No idea if that dodge would have gotten past the margin lady, but it felt more honest to me.

@dmckee: would you have cited some of the papers that cite X as the source of Y, to show that your claim is well-founded? :-)

"I just happened to come across one clear instance of such practice" - how do you know? unless they cited X and it does not support (or even address) fact Y?

The answer also depends on how much you are confident about fact Y being actually true. If fact Y is well-known and widely accepted and you just want to attribute it to its original source or give a pointer for the reader, it is better to do the right thing but an error is unlikely to have big consequences. (Of course, embarrassment or confusion may still ensue, e.g., readers follow the link and find nothing relevant, or Y is not the original source and you misrepresented it as such.) Conversely, if you have any doubt about the veracity of Y then yes, I'd say you have to go and check.

seems similar to this question i asked awhile ago http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/19005/how-much-can-you-trust-a-reference-of-a-paper-that-is-not-available

Some good reading on the various issues with citing-via-other-papers (and the problem that there is often no perfect way to do it): Rekdal 2014, "Academic urban legends" http://sss.sagepub.com/content/44/4/638.full.pdf+html

See also: When you reference an article, is it always expected that you have actually read it?.

Unethical? Not if you add a * -- never read it myself footnote!

@Andrew: the article you point to is a must-read!

@KennyLJ: " I am NOT asking whether this is good scientific practice": how could bad scientific practice be completely ethical?

@BenoîtKloeckner: If I was supposed to take notes during a solar eclipse but fell asleep during that time, then I might be considered a bad scientist. However, I would not be considered an unethical scientist.

@KennyLJ: citing a book without reading it is not something that happen to you or that you do accidently. Conveying information is core to a scientist job, thus any bad practice in this domain cannot be fully ethical. It might be a minor infringement of ethics, but no less.

When you cite a source, you are not actually claiming that you have read it.  What you are actually doing is staking your professional reputation on that source containing the information that you claim that it contains.
In most circumstances, of course, this gets instantiated exactly how you would expect: at least one of the authors has personally read the source.  There are, however, certain circumstances in which citation of an unread source is actually appropriate.  Let me give two examples:

The source is cited as a secondary source, e.g., "Feng et al.[17] claim that the species presented in the Necronomicon[18] can be found in Antarctica."  Here is is appropriate to give the bibliographic "pointer" to the secondary source even if you cannot access it yourself.
The source material may be known by a different route than the original publication.  This frequently happens with software tools and standards: for example, you might cite a standard that you are using even if you haven't read the standards document.  Likewise, if I am using a software tool, the authors often point to a particular paper as the preferred appropriate citation for the tool, and I am happy to take their word for it without reading that paper.

There may be many more cases as well.  It all comes down to this: how certain are you that you really know that the document you cite serves the purpose for which you are citing it?

I think there are two occasions where I needed to cite mathematical results which were originally published in Russian, which I don't speak, but where the authors had later written about the work in English. I cited both, indicating that I had only read the English paper but that the authors said they were translating their work. I think this is pretty reasonable.

@jakebeal I think this is a very good answer, but am wondering what your take would be on the situation where the secondary source is a personal communication between the primary source and some other party?  I actually have this as an AcademiaSE question entitled "Citing a Work that Cites a Personal Communication".  If you'd be willing to adapt/extend your answer to that situation and submit as an answer, I'd be grateful to have it.  Thanks!

If you are referring to this question, then I think my answer to it already covers the situation.  Is there something else that you are looking to understand there?

@jakebeal Very odd... up until now, your answer wasn't showing up... thanks for mentioning it.  Now having read it, I'd suggest either linking to your answer to the present question as this version goes into a bit more detail, or copy/pasting some of what is written here in your answer to my question.  Either way, I appreciate it.  Thanks!

(This is largely a response prompted by your addendum 2)

I'm not asking if such practice is a good idea or good scientific practice. (One comment and one answer seem to be saying that it is not good scientific practice. Which I agree with.) Instead, I'm asking if it is viewed among academics as unethical. (And to what degree: Is it no big deal? Or something to be deeply ashamed of if you're caught?)

Everyone agrees that it is neither a good idea nor a good practice, for reasons pointed out in the other answers. So, let's leave that out and focus on the crux of your question.

Is it unethical?

Yes. It is. More generally, claiming anything to be true when you are not too sure is unethical in the strict sense.

... something to be deeply ashamed of if you're caught?

Absolutely (i.e. if you are caught). Reputation (or disrepute) spreads. Or even if it doesn't, at least the people who catch you will always be skeptical of your claims, even when you are right. These seemingly innocuous, freak mistakes can easily blemish the reputation you earn the hard-way, by working very hard. Irrespective of how you try to sell it (upon being caught), it does count as unethical and is bound to leave you red-faced.
A big part of being successful and renowned in academia is earning respect and credibility through work. This question is best answered by asking yourself - Would I believe the claims of someone whom I've caught doing this?

PS - I'm sorry, I'm being the ethics police here. Other answers are claiming that this is harmless and won't cost you your job. I agree it won't, but it will cost you credibility and respect. If you repeatedly stress that your question is Is it ethical, I'm afraid, someone will have to stress that it really is not ethical. :)

As mentioned, this seems to me a common practice. (Feel free to disagree.) Yet to my knowledge, no one has ever been left "red-faced". (But perhaps you can give me some examples of persons who have been thus embarrassed.) Why has no one (or few) ever been left "red-faced"? Is it because (a) it is difficult to conclusively prove that someone engaged in this practice; or (b) it really isn't a big deal? My feeling is that it is more (b) than (a).

@KennyLJ - (Part 1, Example) - I had the privilege of embarrassing my own advisor and a group senior in this manner. They had been citing a book as the source of a parameter input in 3-4 of their papers. My intentions weren't bad, I only told them in a group meeting (only 3 of us) that I was looking for it, but I couldn't find that source anywhere, so I requested them to hand it to me since they must be having it. They were both clearly embarrassed while disclosing that none of them had seen it. Some other source had mentioned it and they followed suite. (ofc, it came back to bite me later)

(contd.) You do that to your advisor, and it does bite you hard. It did, but that's just counting my miseries. But importantly, a feeling of trust was broken, and some disrespect entered the scene. People don't get caught doing this in presentations etc., because there are ways of chickening out. But when someone checks the nitty gritty (such as a group junior who is first going to rederive some results before doing his own) can always find out.

@KennyLJ - (Part 2 - A question of (a) vs (b)). - I don't disagree with your logic. But you repeatedly pressed the question - is it unethical? It is, in a strict sense!

I do think you're conflating credibility and ethics when they're 2 very different things.
Someone can be hideously unethical but still be credible. A murderer who documents the volume of screaming from victims in different scenarios is extremely unethical but may be utterly credible due to impeccable record keeping about their methods and recordings.
On the other hand someone might be extremely ethical but fairly inept and incompetent making them not very credible.

@Murphy - In your example, credibility and ethics are in two different contexts. I'm speaking of the case when the same murderer is being unethical with respect to the measurements he's performing as well, and not just by the act of murdering. You are free to disagree. Have a good day :)

@TheDarkSide my issue is with conflating the 2 without establishing that in this case both actually apply.Taking up wearing a crown made of toilet roll tubes to all academic events may may you less credible but it's not unethical in any way. "Would I believe the claims of someone whom I've caught doing this?" has nothing to do with ethics as a measure. only credibility.
Citing a source you haven't read with a claim about what it says may be somewhat unethical because it can propagate errors and false claims and it could also make the person less credible but one does not imply the other.

this seems to me a common practice — Indeed, but many common practices are unethical.

(temporary comment, will be deleted soon) - :: jumping up and down on the couch :: "OMG, @JeffE commented on my post. Does that make me famous?"

Does that make me famous? — First, I would have to be famous. So, erm, no.  :-)

Suppose paper A, which I've actually read, proves Z and uses "when X holds, then Y [1]". Now, let's suppose I need the claim for my paper B, as part of my argument, and also Z. I have to write "when X holds, then Y". Then, should I point to A, which I cite elsewhere for Z, or to 1? I'd go for 1, and I think it would be misleading to point to A (you go to A, just to discover it does not "prove" the claim, but cite 1...). Nonetheless, it'd be better to add a clue for the fact you're "citing a citation"; if you don't, anyway, I can't see any ethical issue.

@ShinTakezou - That's dmckee's example below the question. I agree with the part about citing the citation, but as for the "anyway" bit - I agree it is going to be harmless (almost always), but can earn disrespect, as with my advisor's example. So, it is strictly speaking unethical, but harmlessly unethical. If you read the developments of this post in chronological order, so many people said it is harmless, but OP was hell bent upon asking whether it is ethical is his question. So, I obliged. :)

@TheDarkSide sorry for not having spotted the example was already done&discussed. Still on the matter, my pov: when I read a paper, I don't expect authors to have read all cited works. If I am concerned with how good are the grounds of arguments, and how much I can trust the judgement of the authors, I should check all the citation, even to see if they are cited correctly and if the refs in fact support the claims(fear contextomy!). If peer reviewed, I think I don't need to do so. Otherwise,... but anyway, I don't see it unethical, since all I need to "verify" the paper, is there.

Think of the case when you are the author of the paper that wasn't read. A paper I had written was cited, but the authors only quoted a counterargument I had used, not the main conclusion of my paper. They then went on to argue that I was wrong, but reached the very same conclusion that I had presented later in my paper, but claimed theirs as a new result. Whether technically unethical or not, how do you think I feel about the authors and their paper? I certainly wouldn't be likely to collaborate with them or recommend their work, for fear of having my own work stolen or again misrepresented. As others have pointed out, their reputation, as far as I'm concerned, is gone.

If not unethical, I would certainly say unwise, since you are unable to find the context surrounding the statement of fact or answer that you want to reference. To clear yourself of this, you would have to mention that the text X is unattainable and that it mentions fact Y as useful, but that you would need further review of the material to verify the complete veracity of the statement as it applies to your specific usage of that fact. In other words, if you have bias in your presentation, acknowledge it clearly and don't hide it.
In answer to your specific question of how ethical this practice is...
I would say that it is unethical. The lesser transgression of ethics would be simply that the article would be using another person's work to pad the robustness of the bibliography. This is a minor point.
The greater transgression brings me back to my earlier point of referencing a fact without context, which puts you in a questionable position when someone asks you for more information about that fact. Worse still would be to base one of your key thesis arguments on a fact from a text you couldn't find.
I understand that you are not actually doing this, so am only using 'you' for the purposes of conversation.

You make statements that you believe are true, e.g. citing a source for a fact. If you cite that source incorrectly - you fully believed that source corroborated your fact, but you were in error - you did poor work, but you did it ethically.  If you can do more work to verify your source, but you do not, or you represent that you have done more work to verify your source that you have not done, then it doesn't matter whether the source corroborates your fact or not, you have behaved unethically.
If you are completely honest about exactly the level of work you have done to verify that the cited source corroborates your fact, you are in danger of being proven wrong, or of being dismissed as not having done the appropriate level of verification, but you have behaved ethically.
It's situational, in general it's probably poor practice but if you as the reader are aware of this situation then I'd say the author has at least behaved ethically.

This is often known as an 'indirect source' or 'secondary source'.  Check the citation standards for your community, as there may be a specific style that should be used for these cases.  In some styles you list only the secondary source in your reference list (with original mentioned in the text), in others you list both the original and secondary source as seperate items, and in others you have a sort of merged reference entry.
Note that you should only use this case if you either can't obtain the original (check with your library; they can make requests through inter-library loan, but this doesn't work if it's something that was never publihed), or you can't read the original because it's in a language that you don't undertand.
Here are libguides from various institutions that cover some common styles:

AMA & APA : use the phrase "as cited in", cite the secondary source.
Chicago : use "cited in" or "quoted in", cite the secondary source
MLA : use "qtd. in", cite the secondary source
Turabian : merged reference (Original. Cited in Secondary)

The devil is always in the details, but it can be perfectly ethical and professionally correct. There are several cases when it is almost inevitable: depending on your field, many equipment, software etc require to cite given references when you use them. These are technical citations that you may or may not read, and most of the times they have little useful information for you and you cite it to indicate to use the given method.
In e.g. chemistry typical examples are crystallography software, quantum chemical simulation software, visualization software, but I am sure you can find typical examples in many other fields.

It's less unethical than the circumstance you want to compare to without question. I don't think anyone has ever gotten fired citing something they didn't read, but it's possible for there to be a lot of trouble. Imagine the case where you cite a source for some fact which that source got from somewhere else. If you don't go check that they got it right, the entire validity of your article could come crashing down because you didn't bother to read enough sources. That's unlikely to cost you your job, but it could if the consequence of your article's invalidity are high enough.

@Kimball, yes. Ethics aren't binary. It's less bad to cite something you haven't read than it is to assault your student.

Ah, I see, you were responding to the end of the first addendum.

I think it’s not unethical in general, even if there could exist cases when the decision could be poor judgement, hence diminishing the credibility of the authors and trustworthiness of their work. But this is not about ethics.
As said in a comment, I don’t expect authors to have read all the cited works (each wholly, instead of partly, or indirectly…). In the same time, when I read a paper and find a specific claim with a reference, say, The fact Y holds [X], I expect X to be the paper or book supporting the statement. I am not really interested to know whether the authors have read X at all: I have only to know if X supports the claim or not.
Nonetheless, what if I read X and find that it is misquoted? Or if I discover that its results are misunderstood and that they do not support Y?
Since I don’t know whether the authors haven’t read X and they are instead trusting (wrongly) another source I can’t trace back (since they missed to provide me with the proper clue), their credibility crumbles in front of my eyes. In the same time, the citing paper loses all its supposed value.
Thus I can see only two reasons why authors should specify that the claim is supported in X and that “the claim is supported in X” is stated in a paper Z (and that this is how they know, or believe to know that Y is true):

to aknowledge authors of Z for their work (in fact, I suppose there’s a reason if the authors have read it);
to keep every link of the “chain of trust”.

In my opinion, only the former has something to do with ethics, while the latter has something to do with how scientific (and non-scientific) knowledge proceeds. I won’t elaborate on this “chain of trust”, but think about few things: If Z (containing the claim supported by X) was peer-reviewed, would you feel suspicious when you read The fact Y holds [X]? Would you act like a reviewer or just like a user assuming Z already proved to meet the necessary criteria to be considered trustworthy, in general and so in particular about that specific claim and the references? Would you instead go and check and verify all references, and then all the references contained in the referenced works, and so on? Would you stop at level 2, level 3, level 4 or level N before you think something is trustworthy enough? And if the paper is not peer-reviewed at all, what does it make trustworthy to you in first place?
When you decide to write The fact Y holds [X] and skip the link with your primary source, you are making a precise bold judgement: The link you are skipping is 100 % right, errors-free and nobody needs to check it (or even to know you relied on it). This is problematic for you, as an author, but not for any reader: You are not cheating “against” the reader, since to judge your work he only needs to know if X really supports Y (in turn, if the reader trusts you, he might decide you are not lying, unintentionally or not – another link in the chain), and you give him the reference, so he knows where to check for the claim. But, skipping the link Z, you bring on your shoulder the burden of anything Z does, mistakes included.
Therefore I agree with anybody saying it’s good practice to be accurate and let people (and reviewers) know The fact Y holds [X] is written in Z, and that this is your primary source for the claim. But I can’t see grounds to say that if you don’t, it is unethical – rather, it is simply in your own interests to do so.
In your case, there’s no Z, if I’ve understood correctly. It seems there’s something like a common knowledge, i.e., a collection of sources agreeing on the fact Y and suggesting (or stating) that the claim is supported by X. Your paper adds one more to this “cloud”, eventually growing the loop and a possible bubble — bad approach (especially if actually the author hasn’t picked one of those sources at all), but isn’t unethical to me.
(Let me say that if Y is something like James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA and the book is The Double Helix: A personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, I would not say that it is a bad approach. So, it might strongly depends on what we are actually talking about.)
I hope my answers, while touching already cited themes, adds few sparks to elaborate over the reason why it should, or should not be considered unethical the behaviour the OP describes.

+1 for a thoughtful, sophisticated, and detailed analysis.

Your answer seems really good but I can't tell for sure because I'm having a hell of a time parsing your sentences. Any chance you could simplify them? For example, phrases like let people know "the fact Y holds [X]" is cited in Z is pretty complex and a bit confusing when every sentence reads like that.

@Mehrdad sorry... they seems clear to me, maybe I am trained to read sentences like that. I will think about a different way to say the same thing, but currently I can't come up with anything. I do accept reasonable suggestions.

@wrzlprmft I really don't get the meaning of your edits. Using quotes of one style or another does not matter, using italics instead of quotes neither; sentences like «the authors have read the X» are even less clear than «the authors have read the book X» (in fact, X is a book in the OP question). Since the book is just one (namely X), I could have said «the book» everywhere; though, I think (likely wrongly) having a label can be useful. Similar thoughts for paper C, which became Z. And «there's no Z» let a already confused reader wonder what that Z is... well, it's a paper, likely.

@ShinTakezou: 1) Guillemets (»«) are not used in the English language. 2) A label is useful, if some variable is used sparsely, which isn’t the case here. Who cannot remember what X, Y and Z are will be lost anyway, be they specified or not. Specifying them would be just another word to read. 3) paper C did not become Z, paper C was an unecessary placeholder; paper A became Z (to avoid confusion with the indefinite article).

@Wrzlprmft 3) Maybe I meant paper A, where A was chosen since it's the "prima(ry)" letter of the alphabet. 1) next time I'll use 「and」. Symbols, embracing something to be considered as an object itself - e.g. a citation or a proposition; «» visually stronger. Noticed I've used both kind of quotes? ... And emphasis? What kind of rule are you committed to enforce? Is editing the style a common practice here? Thought from SO it wasn't a good idea. Irrelevant. 2) Irrelevant too, and subjective in any case if it is beneficial or not. Your time. My opinion:it looks even worse, without benefits.

I am a Computer Science major and I have come across obvious instances of this in several of the journal articles I have read. Sometimes it seems ethically sound and sometimes it seems like the person was being lazy.
I agree with others that the key to remaining ethical is not presenting the information in an ambiguous way where a reader might think you have read the work when you have not. For instance, you have seen in book Z that book X is a reference to fact Y. I do not think it is then safe to say, "According to [book X], it has been shown that [fact Y]," but it is ethical to say "[Book Z] claims [fact Y], referencing [Book X]."
Whether this is effective enough in a paper is a matter of opinion I suppose, but I do think it is fair to say that it actually depends somewhat on the field. The more the research is based on experimental data, the more it seems like you would want to review the data yourself before citing it. However, if you are talking about what people are saying as opinion, academic, professional, or otherwise, you run less risk of making your paper less credible if you are clarifying that another author first made that interpretation of what that opinion might mean.

Yes, I think you can cite in a way that is ethically correct.  If you claim c which is mentioned in book C, but you know this from book B which references C, you can cite:

AuthorC: "C", PlaceC, TimeC, cited in AuthorB: "B", PlaceB, TimeB.

even without ever holding book C in your hand.  You delegate the responsibility for correctness of the information c to B.
See also: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/148878/phrase-cited-after as well as http://www.reading.ac.uk/library/finding-info/guides/lib-citing-cited-ref.aspx
The phrases "cited in" and "cited by" are more common, albeit you may find "cited after" in some cases.
With regards to ethics, using the abovementioned method of citing you do avoid being dishonest and deceitful.  However, the professor marking your scientific text may still think that you have cut a corner by not tracking down the actual source yourself.
Still hoping my answer helps,
Ned64.

Did you read the only answer of the question you linked? It says "... usually a no-go in serious academic writing (except, perhaps, in somy very exceptional circumstances, if you've cleared it with your academic advisor.) ...".

You are not answering the question. The OP is asking whether it is unethical.

@scaaahu That there is a correct form for doing this means that simply citing C is not the correct form, and could be viewed as unethical for concealing the fact that this was done. The "no-go" is actually doing this, not the citation form.

I've never seen the phrase "cited after" except here.  Standard English would call for "cited by [author]" or "cited in [work]".

@scaaahu Addressed your comments by my edits, but you need to put the "no-go" into the context in which it was written.  This is about ethics and not whether your supervisor will be happy with your paper (and diligence to dig up sources).  Sometimes the source will just not be available (e.g. very old texts, out of print) or in a language you do not understand.  There is little choice then, except trust a reputable source to cite the information correctly, and honestly say upon which source you relied.


text:
How can someone achieve GRE waiver?
How can somebody get an admission in a graduate science/technology/engineering program US university without GRE?

Waivers from a university or department admission requirement would be the prerogative of the university's or department's admissions officers. Policies will vary between different universities or even between different departments in the same university. You need to ask the admissions officers at the place you want to apply to.

You should have a reason for requesting the GRE waiver.   If you don't explain this, the admissions committee will probably assume that you didn't submit a GRE score because you did very badly on the GRE or were afraid to take it in the first place.  There are some reasonable excuses for not taking the GRE, such as "I couldn't take the GRE in my country due to an ongoing civil war."

Unless this question is completely hypothetical, you will probably get more helpful answers if you can explain why you want to do this. Otherwise, you are just asking people to list every possible waiver reason, and if your particular reason is not listed, you won't know whether that's because it's not an acceptable reason, or just because nobody thought to mention it.

You could always apply to a department (like mine) that doesn't require GRE scores at all.

Hey guys, are going to put every question of mine on hold and thus systematically kick me out of academia.se?

@BROY: You're getting a lot of close votes because a lot of your recent questions have been falling into the pattern of being opinion-based ("Is a PhD better than two masters?") or too specific (asking about "empirical research," then pointing to a specific advertisement). I think people are looking at the questions, not the poster.

@aeismail, now what about this question? is it general enough now?

I had already reopened it when I posted the comment.

At this level of generality, I think all one can say is the following:

Look for programs that do not have a GRE as part of their admission requirements.
For departments that do require it: if you have some specific reason for being unable to take the GRE, or for not having scores that meet their criteria, contact someone at the department and ask how to proceed.  (Admissions information normally includes the email address of a contact person.)  In many cases, you will include some explanation in your cover letter or statement of purpose.
If a department requires the GRE, and you don't have a compelling reason for not taking it, or for doing poorly: don't apply to that department.


text:
Is it possible for someone with a BA in mathematics who is not currently a student to get an applied research job?
My graduate school applications fell through and I was wondering if there was a job I could do that would keep me improving as a mathematician, or if the best I could hope for is the least invasive mode of sustaining myself while I study/prove in my own time. I don't need much money to live off of, but I do need to support myself. Is it possible to get applied research jobs with a BA? I know there are research opportunities for graduate students and undergraduates. Do these apply to "unattached" peoples? What about part-time or consulting work?

A relevant question is http://math.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes

I'll explain my situation. Due to circumstances outside my control I was unable to apply for graduate school.
In the mean time, I am staying busy until I can apply this fall. Currently:

I am taking programming/CS at my community college.
I have been studying math, physics, and computer science on my own. I've been on here a decent amount, I do project euler, I have books, there's Coursera/MITOCW.
I live somewhat close to a very good university (UC Berkeley to be exact). I looked up the professors for ones that are doing research in fields I am interested in, and emailed them. I am current doing some reading with one of them which will probably turn into some research/writing a paper.
I looked at the classes I was interested in at the university. I emailed the professors asking if I could audit them. They all unequivocally said "yes", some even offered to grade my tests or said that homework was peer graded.
I have been tutoring a lot to make money (with a BA you could easily charge $30-40 an hour). If you really want to, you can get enough students to live very modestly while still pursuing your interests.
I know a friend who works doing data science. He might be able to get me an internship at his work.
The same friend might want to design some programs together.
Once I get a little better at programming, I was thinking about doing some freelance software/website/etc. development. I'm sure I could do projects here and there.

So do NOT feel hopeless. Honestly I feel like my passion for math and science has never been higher, and I feel very positive. There are TONS of things you can do. Please ask me if you want to talk more. :)


text:
In the field of engineering, can GRE General test score be substituted with GRE Math score?
In the field of engineering, can GRE General test score be substituted with GRE Math score?
Suppose a US university requires GRE general test score for PhD program, if an applicant sends GRE Math score, will that be enough?

Probably not, but the only way to find out is to ask the university, not to ask random folks like me.

The GRE General test includes tests of verbal reasoning and analytical writing. I don't think the scores on those sections can be predicted from GRE Math scores, so a Math score would not tell them everything they would want to find out from the general test.

By "GRE Math", are you referring to the GRE subject test in Math, or just the quantitative part of the general GRE?  The subject test is much more advanced and much more difficult, and wouldn't usually be taken by engineers.

Possible duplicate of Is a general GRE test required if I have already passed a GRE Subject Test?

Pretty much all programs will reject your application without consideration if you do not submit everything they request.  Some places are flexible; they may be willing to accept either test score.  (Some of the department at my university, including my department, are willing to take any one relevant score.)  However, such programs will almost always state this explicitly in their graduate application guidelines.  If you think a program might be willing to accept the substitution, you can always contact their director of graduate admissions or director of graduate studies and ask.  Chances are strongly against their saying yes, but it probably will not hurt your chances if you ask.

which uni r u in?

I work as a mid-level American research university--a large state school.


text:
Is there an honors system in graduate schools?
Just like the Latin honors system in undergraduate programs, is there such a system for postgraduate degrees ?

Yes. It's called "Publishing in high-quality venues". Seriously, nobody cares about your grades in grad school. Papers are what people will evaluate you on.

If you mean adding cum laude to the degree, it's highly country-dependent, I imagine. We had those in my alma mater in Italy.

I think that it significantly depends on country and university, but, based on my kind of unfortunate experience, graduate schools very rarely use the Latin honors system (with the exception of the JD degree and, less frequent, some other degrees - see below for an example).
As a recent Ph.D. graduate with high GPA (3.94, which usually corresponds to summa cum laude), I was wondering the same thing, while updating my CV and resume. I have asked someone at my program's office, but the reply was that at our university the Latin honor system is used usually for undergraduate and, perhaps, for some medical degrees. The lady was polite and advised to inquire further at the program's office. However, after reading the corresponding Wikipedia article and browsing some graduation-related documents on my university's website, I have figured that further research is not worth spending my time, so I have just made sure that my CV and resume contain correct GPA numbers for all my degrees (it is not as practical as the Latin honors terms, since those terms can be used in other contexts beyond the one of CV or resume). I hope this is helpful.
NOTE. Here's the information on grading and academic honors at some of the top MBA programs: http://poetsandquants.com/2014/02/27/how-mbas-are-graded-at-top-schools/2. Note the total lack of graduation honors at Yale. Despite the existence of a variety of unique honors at some of the top schools, for the majority of the rest of graduate schools, the most common academic honor terms at the graduate level seem to be "with distinction" or similar, as mentioned by @RoboKaren.

those terms can be used in other contexts beyond the one of CV or resume — They can?

@JeffE: Absolutely. For example, one can easily use those terms on professional social network's profile (i.e., LinkedIn, ResearchGate), while specifying GPA seems to be out of context. Another related example is a personal professional website, say, of a consultant, where the "About" section can contain the Latin honor terms along with specifying the consultant's education (I've seen that a lot). It looks and reads harmoniously, whereas GPA wouldn't.

Well sure, you can write down your cum laude in all kinds of places. But I don't think anyone cares. This is just the wrong "distinction" for a PhD. Your distinctions are supposed to be your novel results, papers published in selective journals or conferences, your best paper awards, your dissertation.

@SashoNikolov: Just because you don't care about those things doesn't mean everybody think so. Sure, results that you've mentioned are important, but stable high level of academic performance has a specific and well-defined meaning in my book and I consider it an important part of a person's professional portrait.

Besides the considerations Sasha pointed out (which are entirely accurate),  GPA-based honors at the graduate school level would be inappropriate because the grading curve is so compressed, at least at the schools I've had experience with (and I've been told this is a quite general phenomenon). Virtually everyone gets an A or A-. More than one B is grounds for expulsion.

What @Potato said. The exact cutoff varies, but in most PhD programs in the US anything below B or B- is considered a failing grade and a single one can get you on probation. Classes are not meant to be the essential component of your academic performance in PhD, but to prepare you for the essential component, which is research. Having a high GPA means little more than passing. Many good schools have internal dissertation awards: now these are a much better goal.

Sasho and Potato: I understand your points and they make some sense, but they are not universally true. Plus, dissertation awards and such are significantly dependent on schools and other factors. You're entitled to to have your opinions, while I stand by mine.

At my university, you can graduate at the doctoral level "with distinction." This is the only honor we offer (aside from dissertation prizes) and it's entirely based on the dissertation, not on coursework.
We don't even calculate the GPA of our graduate students.

Yes, I think grad students awards are generally the closest analogue of a BS/BA "with honors."

Not in the US.  However, many Universities will put "passed with distinction" or some variant of that on your transcripts.
As for the people that say "nobody cares about your grades in grad school"... try explaining your theory to a potential employer when justifying why you are a better choice with your 3.4 than your competition that has a 4.0.  Employers do care because your grades are a solid indicator of the level of work you put into things.

Employers might care about grades for a masters, but if they understand a PhD they will know the main part of a PhD is not graded.

No, there are no such titles or honors with grad school, as you must maintain a B or higher to pass. A grade of B- or lower will result in failing or incompleting the course. Due to this standard of requiring at least a 3.0, all
students inevitably have high GPA's upon graduating. Ultimately, grad students are expected to work harder, provided harder work and obtaining a high GPA is no longer an accomplisment, but rather anticipated.

Welcome to Academia.SE. While this is correct at many US institutions, it is not universally true that all students must maintain a B average. Further, this in itself does not answer the question: there is still a significant difference between a 3.0 and a 4.0.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What is the difference between research and a thesis at the B.S./M.S. level?
I will be a freshman majoring in Computer Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign next fall, and I'm interested in their B.S.-M.S. 5-year program. I ultimately want to get a Ph.D. in Computer Science so I can teach at a university. On the webpage documenting the B.S.-M.S. program it says:

Students are strongly advised to seek faculty counsel about the 5-yr program to be sure they understand the pros and cons of pursuing a Masters degree via the 5-yr program. If their intention is to ultimately pursue a Ph.D., then it may be preferable to avoid the rapid pace of the 5-year program and instead invest time in research as an undergraduate. For admission to competitive Ph.D. programs, the expectation of publications and extensive research experience is higher for M.S. graduates. Therefore, as an alternative to the 5-year program, many top students may prefer to conduct research, possibly leading to a B.S. thesis, as a way to improve their admissions chances into top Ph.D. programs.

This paragraph left me confused, because the M.S. program requires a thesis to graduate. I was always under the impression that thesis ≈ research. Wouldn't it be better preparation to acquire experience in graduate coursework and produce a Master's thesis than to simply get a B.S. thesis? It seems to me that according to this paragraph, the only reason to get a B.S. thesis instead of an M.S. thesis is to increase admissions chances to Ph.D. programs, because more is expected of M.S. students.
So, my main question is, how is a thesis different than research experience? Why is it worse to obtain an M.S. thesis (through a 5-year program) rather than a B.S. thesis, given I will apply to Ph.D. programs?

@JeffE $@$JeffE $@$JeffE: I summon thee.

I think by "research experience" they mean "publications", which are peer-reviewed, publicized and are easy for a potential advisor to skim through while reviewing your work. However, they can take a LONG time to prepare, submit, revise and publish, which will be particularly hard to do while also dealing with undergrad/graduate workload. I did co-author a publication while an undergrad, which hugely helped me during applications. But I've never written a thesis or done a Masters, however, so I can't really compare the two.

http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45768/what-is-the-difference-between-research-and-a-thesis-at-the-b-s-m-s-level

http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45768/what-is-the-difference-between-research-and-a-thesis-at-the-b-s-m-s-level#comment214259_45768

A thesis is always research, but not all research is theses.
In a five-year Masters program, one would definitely do a thesis, but these programs often have very stiff course requirements, which leave little time for research except the thesis.  Given this, it is often the case that the only research that a student does is the thesis, and that only to the level of sufficiency to obtain the degree.  Many 5-year Masters Theses are thus no better than 4-year Bachelor's theses, but will indeed be held to a higher standard (e.g., as though one had gone through a separate 2-years Masters program).
Last-minute and "merely sufficient" research work of this sort will also be much less effective at building trust and relationships with a faculty member than a longer time working on research as an undergraduate, even at a "lower" level.  This significantly impacts one's ability to get a good letter of recommendation, which is another key for PhD admission.
I suspect this is why they recommend as they do, and think it's a good thing that they do so.

Many institutions now five-year programs that ultimately earn the participant a bachelor's degree and a master's degree.  Sometimes these programs are split cleanly into a four-year-undergraduate program, followed by a one-year graduate program.  Other times, the program is integrated over the full five years, making it more like a five-year undergraduate program (with the addition study that an extra year obviously entails).
In either case, there is only about one extra year for the master's-level work.  That's not a lot of time for graduate-level classes and a substantial research thesis.  Sometimes these programs do not require a thesis at all; in engineering departments, these are often labeled as master of engineering (rather than master of science) degrees.  Even when a thesis is part of the requirements, it may not entail much (if any) original research.  The thesis may be more of a extended report on the current state of a field, without any new contributions from the writer.  (Of course, new results would certainly be welcomed as part of a thesis in such a program, but it is not a requirement.)
So if a student is planning to move on to a doctoral program, it may be advantageous to spend more time on research, rather than creating a thesis on the type I have described.  I'm not convinced that one or the other plan is actually better.  Either a one-year masters or significant undergraduate research experience would enhance a Ph.D. applicant's file.  However, I can certainly imagine situations in which either one might end up being more advantageous than the other.

The best people to speak to would be advisers at your university.
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of Master's courses - Master's by coursework, and Master's by research.
In a Master's by coursework, you do classes in 3 semesters, and write your thesis in the fourth.
By comparison, a Master's by research, you do classes in 1 semester, and write your thesis in the remaining 3 semesters.
The above timings will likely vary between courses, universities and countries, and is based on my own Master's experiences, but you can see there is a big difference in how much time and focus is placed on the thesis.
A PhD program is all about research, and as part of the admission process, you need to show them your Master's thesis. Thus, if your thesis isn't that great because you didn't have much time to spend research, then you likely wouldn't get in.

I don't think either of these well describes a fifth-year Masters like the OP describes.


text:
Why are there so many mental health problems in academia?
One thing I've been really curious about recently is why there is a very high tendency for academics to suffer from mental health problems (e.g. anxiety and depression). There are a bunch of factors behind this:

Very long hours
Relatively low pay
Constant pressure to chase up funding and publish papers
Continuous flow of work resulting in feeling little personal reward
Dealing with abrasive personalities (such as some specific professors, supervisors and so forth)
Perfectionism, resulting in feeling that nothing is truly good enough
Lack of open-mindedness towards admitting difficulties or not understanding something
A feel that "if you can't take the heat, then you shouldn't be here"
Lack of external support at some institutions.

This is a very striking read, which highlights that many mental health issues in academia are accepted as the norm or simply ignored, whereas in any other job these would be picked up on and support would be offered.
Also, as someone who as experienced similar difficulties previously in my studies (such as in school and during my undergraduate degree) and had plenty of external support offered to me, it almost seems as though everything I learnt about having a healthy life balance and looking after myself is something that goes out of the window at research level.
I'm sure maybe there are some more that I haven't mentioned, but what would you say is probably biggest influence on people feeling depressed (and some even having dark thoughts) in university departments?

Don't mistake correlation with causation. Academia has aspects that are more amenable to people with depression/anxiety than industry -- in particular, being able to schedule your own time.

Is the correlation even established? The linked article mentions self reported levels of stress are increasing in Academia over time - but that is a few steps removed from saying that there are more mental health problems in academia (compared to an anonymous referent).

That's definitely a fair point - I'm aware that in certain other demanding career paths, similar issues can occur (such as teaching at school level, where there may be a lot of pressure from marking exams and unruly students). It definitely seems as though mental health issues seem more prevalent in academia than in other sectors although this may be more of a matter of media coverage than specifically academia. However, the fact that this atmosphere exists in academia is far from ideal - and still, I feel there needs to be a conscious effort to rectify that.

Where is the evidence of a "very high tendency for academics to suffer from mental health problems" relative to nonacademics? Also you've got a pretty rosy view of life outside academia if you think that "in any other job these would be picked up on and support would be offered"

There isn't a specific statement of correlation in the article, but if you read the article and look at the big picture, it does indicate that there are lots of factors which can be at play. A lot of external factors can affect people psychologically but often in a non-linear (and not exactly quantifiable) way.
In response, perhaps I worded that badly. What I meant to say was that if someone was suffering from signs of mental health problems at work, then it would probably be picked up on by colleagues, and depending on the specific company, there may or may not be support available.

"College Professor" ranked #19 in the "Canada's Best Jobs" listing by "Canadian Business" http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/best-jobs/2015-university-professor/

I'd be interested to know what the corresponding statistic is for the UK...

You may find this meta discussion interesting: Is the seemingly high prevalence of clinical depression cases in A.SE askers normal?

Academia can be high stress, but there is a lot of autonomy for faculty and depression might not be easily detected, as many, many faculty cope by taking antidepressants. For those not on anti-depressants, normal behavior might seem aggressive to colleagues who are on mind-numbing drugs. Many faculty also have personality disorders that are undiagnosed.

I think that part of the issue of why it seems there are so many people with mental-health issues is systematic. I think that academic environments are beginning to place much more emphasis on the mental well-being of their community members (students, faculty, and staff), so diagnoses of mental-health issues have increased compared to the past. Moreover, because universities tend to be more "accepting" of issues than most other environments, it's easier for people to mention such issues. Also, because of the nature of the people in academic environments, they're much more likely to recognize that they're experiencing mental health issues, rather than "passing the buck" or pinning the blame on someone or something else.
One other question that you haven't raised is if there's a greater correlation between increased academic training and propensity to experience mental-health issues; I'm not sure about the answer to that, and whether that skews the stats.
But in general, I think that what you're seeing is more likely something closer to the actual level of mental health problems in the general society in academic environments, and an underreporting of it outside of academia (where it is still heavily stigmatized).

"Also, because of the nature of the people in academic environments, they're much more likely to recognize that they're experiencing mental health issues". +1 if you are still laughing at this great joke, I am happy it is as fresh now as it was 9 years ago.
-1 if you are thinking it is showing quite the opposite, how academics can think of themselves as superior entity better than the "average" humanity...


text:
How does a standalone honours degree work?
I'm currently trying to apply for a PhD position, but am unable to meet the entry requirements. My (potential) supervisor has advised me to undertake an honours year to meet the requirements.
I completed my bachelors degree in 2010 at a completely different university and everybody I've known has done their honours year as a part of their undergraduate degree before graduation.
My degree was titled "Bachelors of Computer and Mathematical Sciences" and shortened to BCM. So I would be

Mr. LegoStormtrooper BCM

while my friends who have completed their honours would be

Mr. Other Guy BCM(Hons)

For me, I can't just add on "Hons" because it would be in a different field at a different university.
So I am very confused about this. I've heard of Bachelors, Masters, Doctorates, Graduate Certificates, but never an "Honours degree" as an independent thing.
Can any one explain how this works?

More the case that I'm utterly confused what an "honours degree" is, if its not attached to a Bachelors. Do I have to start all over again? If not, what is the extra year? Its not an honours year to my other degree as that was at another university?

This is a great question to ask your (potential) supervisor.

Based on another of your questions, you're in Australia. UNSW says that it's possible to enroll in an "Honours" year by applying directly to the university. I wasn't able to confirm that on the software engineering page.

I am familiar with the situation in NZ. Since Australia and NZ share many commonalities in higher education, i suspect that things are similar.
A normal bachelors degree is a three-year degree and by itself not sufficient for getting into a PhD program. An honours degree adds a fourth year to the bachelor degree and is normally open to very good students (there are GPA criteria for entry). In particular, an honours degree often involves a research project and is deemed sufficient for PhD admission. Most if not all people do the honours degree immediately after their bachelor. Generally, you need a four-years degree to get into the PhD, which can either be an honours or a master degree.

Yes, but what is an "honours degree"?? Is that a 4 year bachelors degree, because I did a 3 year degree a few years back, and don't want to have to do another 4 years at uni just to get into the PhD.

You completely missed the point of my question which is: "If I've already completed a Bachelors degree (without honours) how does an getting an honours degree work?

It depends. Some degree programmes are four-year degrees from the very beginning and only allow graduation with the honours degree. For other programmes there is a three-year (bachelor) plus one year (honours) split. You get admitted to the honours if your GPA is good enough. From the wording of your supervisor's advice, his institution follows the latter model.

"admitted to the honours"... I don't understand this bit. Is an "Honours degree" separate to a bachelors?

I think that you are asking about an Honours degree in Aus/NZ.
The Honours degree is an additional year(or two depend on the university) of specialized course or research for those who have completed their bachelor degree.
Academic routes of AUS/NZ are different from USA. Their bachelor degrees are usually 3 years, then for some student who want to do research, they study more for an honours degree. In USA, normally their undergraduate degree study already study for 4 years. (Which means it may already included the "Honours Degree"(a.k.a. doing research project), but it depend on whether what each university names their own degree.)
for example, in Honours Year Australian National University

This is completely inaccurate for the UK. In the UK (except Scotland, where the situation is slightly different) the 'default' degree is an honours degree, which takes three years in most subjects. Students may sometimes instead study for an 'ordinary' or 'pass' degree, which may be shorter or may just have lower requirements to be awarded. The 'honours' part of the degree is nothing to do with a research requirement.


text:
How to become a visiting student in a UK University
I'm about to finish my BSc in Computer Science, and in September I'll start an MSc in UK.
What if I don't want to waste my time during the August and September months? Would it be feasible to ask a university for a short period as a visiting student in their department?
What are the steps to follow?

It depends on the university. At UCL for instance you cannot apply for a visiting student status unless you're doing a PhD elsewhere (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-students/international/affiliate/visiting-research-students) but you can apply for voluntary work (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/docs/internships.php). In practice, if students volunteered to work on my projects they would need an excellent track record for me to bear with the extra supervision effort.

Answer for Steve DL Thanks for your answer, I understand the extra effort an additional student/volunteer can cause, but I wouldn't manage to say if, for instance, a student like me can be considered to have an excellent track record. I wasted six years in Med school, without achieving the title, then I turned for Computer Science where I'm getting my bachelor degree in two lovely years (instead of three). I'm happy to study, I'm inclined to academical life, I enjoyed what I've studied so far, I'd like to continue my career in some theoretical field, currently I hold an internship here in my F

See below. You might want to talk to your MSc supervisors and see if you can do a summer project, for instance.

There's no simple formula, and each university will have its own visiting student schemes. This being said, there are usually classic methods for visiting a UK university:
Enrolling in a degree
Obviously you can apply to be enrolled in a degree, pay your tuition fees and study for the degree in the UK. You can usually get a Visa via this mechanism (except for London Metropolitan University which is no longer allowed to issue visas by the UK Border Agency).

Duration: 1 to 4 years.
Cost: a lot. ~£4,000 to £10,000 for EU students, ~£20,000 for non-EU students.
Requirements: apply to target uni. Proof of academic competence required, usually good grades and a BSc/BA for a MSc/MA position.

Applying for an semester abroad as an Erasmus student
You can use the Erasmus Programme to visit a EU university as a EU student. Some non-EU universities located in Europe may also be eligible.

Duration: usually 3 to 6 months.
Cost: free, paid by your university and the EU's Erasmus mobility budget.
Limited scholarships available, usually ~€400 / month
Requirements: must apply to your uni of choice, selection process varies. Your uni often must have a prior agreement with the target uni.

Applying as an exchange student
You can apply outside the Erasmus scheme if you uni has an exchange agreement with the target UK uni.

Duration: usually 3 to 6 months.
Cost: depends on agreement, can be free or can requirement payment of tuition fees.
Requirements: depends on agreement.

Applying as a visiting research student.
You can get opportunities to visit foreign unis as part of your PhD, a bit like an internship. This is fairly common across the world.

Duration: 3 to 12 months.
Cost: free.
Requirements: must be enrolled in a PhD-level course, must have found a supervisor to welcome you in target uni.

Applying for an internship.
You can also join a uni as part of an internship programme, if a position is available in a research group. This normally does not involve any teaching, or in marginal amounts.

Duration: 2 to 6 months.
Cost: free.
Remuneration: depends on uni, not guaranteed... ~£330 per week in some London universities.
Requirements: there must be an internship position available, and you must be the best available candidate. You must work.

Applying for a volunteering position.
You can also join a uni as part of an internship programme, if a position is available in a research group. This normally does not involve any teaching, or in marginal amounts.

Duration: depends.
Cost: free.
Remuneration: none.
Requirements: there must be a volunteer position available, and the supervisor must agree to take you in. No deliverables required.

There's another approach: just hang around. At many universities, a surprising number of events including lectures are open to the public free of charge. Turn up, make friends, get them to take you as a guest to places that are open to students and guests. Probably easier in my day when no-one asked you for ID to go into a library, but still quite possible I would think.