text:
Obstacles in job hunting for US citizens in non-US nations
I am curious to know the kinds of obstacles a US citizen would come across when trying to find work in academia outside the US and/or those that a non-US-citizen faces when trying to get an academic job inside the US.
It would seem that, logistically, it would be easier on the department to hire a citizen over a non-citizen. Is there any advice applicants can follow that would greater their chances?  Do you have to be extraordinary for a department to hire you over an equally qualified citizen?

If there's an equally qualified citizen, it doesn't matter how extraordinary you are, because that equally qualified citizen is just as extraordinary as you, and the government absolutely wants him to be employed.

There a multiple levels on which this problem operates. This is especially true for places saturated with immigrants. (For instance, USA with Indians/Chinese)

Getting the Job
This problem itself has a million subdivisions. Firstly, it is fairly difficult for immigrants (who studied in that country) to get jobs without exhibiting something really outstanding. The problem is not so bad for sectors such as computer science and electrical engineering wherein professionals are required by the dozen. The problem, however, is really bad in areas such as Theoretical Physics or Chemistry (or basic sciences). With limited vacancies and a million outstanding candidates, it is really difficult to crack that "top job".
Working in Sensitive Sectors
I don't even want to get started on sectors like Aerospace. More often than not, graduates from the top universities in USA and Europe have returned to their homelands because all companies stress on citizenship. For EU, it is fairly difficult for a Non-EU resident to get a job in the first place, add to that defense and secrecy and you have a useless degree. In USA, it's even better, if you graduate with a PhD in Aerospace Control Systems from say, Stanford, you are still worthless for US companies because they don't ask just for citizenship anymore but also Top Secret (or Lower) Security Clearance! That's at least 10 years for a foreign citizen.
Immigration and Visa
Getting a job is one part, getting the necessary immigration documents cleared is another. I mentioned about Aerospace engineering being a potential problem as far as jobs are concerned. But thats not all! USA has published a list called the technology alert list which requires screening of candidates before granting a visa.
The immigration laws in the Europe aren't very friendly for Non-European to begin with but as far as I know, they don't maintain a strict segregation between "things non-citizens can't do" and "things they can". However, rising far-right politics, things don't seem to get any better in the future.

Switzerland is not Europe. What I want to say: I don't see rising far-right politics here.

Italy
Germany
Greece
Europe
Europe-Old.

I've followed one of the references and I didn't think it was a strong one. But this is getting far too OT.
Thus, I change my statement to "I don't see rising far-right politics in my local neighborhood" ;-)

Do you have to be extraordinary for a department to hire you over an equally qualified citizen?

That really depends on the search criteria. If the criteria specifically calls for international experience—and many jobs around the world now do exactly that—you might not be disadvantaged at all, and in some cases even have the upper hand.
That said, it is true that hiring a citizen is generally easier than hiring a non-citizen, and in the EU, it's easier to hire a non-citizen who lives in the EU than a non-citizen who lives outside the EU. The result will be a lot more bureaucracy. Whether or not the hiring unit wants to go through the extra trouble will make a lot of the difference, and it's not something you have much control over. (The same principle applies in the US for non-citizens!)

In the US, if you're employed by a university or a government research lab, then you're exempt from the H1B visa cap. Thus the visa is not usually a problem.

I've never heard of universities being unwilling to sponsor H1B visas for tenure-track faculty (in my limited experience), but I have heard of some that will not do so for postdocs as a matter of policy and will insist on say a J1-visa instead. The J1 comes with a 2-year home residency requirement for people from certain countries, which might make it less desirable.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there any efficient non-linear note-taking software?
I'd be interested in tools helping to organize thoughts and ideas, especially in a non-linear way (i.e. not as most existing note taking tools, working with lists and bullets, but rather as a post-it application). Ideally, something like the tool they use in Minority Reports would be cool (without the fancy-touch thingy), but an important point would be the ability to visually connect different ideas/notes together.
EDIT: Maybe to make things more explicit, I have a visual memory, and it helps me a lot having a graphical disposition to classify things (like important things at the top-right, urgent ones on the middle-left, etc). Basically, I'd like to find my messy desk on my screen :)

org-mode is tough to beat if you already use emacs (or even if you don't)

Maybe you should look at https://trello.com/ but this is online only afaik. Windows has such a functionality by itself too (at least my win 8.1 here at work). (It's to be found under %windir%\system32\StikyNot.exe and called "sticky notes").
Edit: Oh I just saw you wanted to connect those post it like notes ... both of my mentioned programs can't do that. Sorry.

While you ask for software, I'm going to suggest hardware: A pencil, a pack of index cards, and your hand. Cards in different colors can be helpful. Or different colored pencils. In other words, just use a portable version of your desk. You can then arrange the cards as you like later - and rearrange them. You can transfer them to software, but the cards themselves remain useful. It is easy to add and discard cards (psychologically nearly impossible to erase anything in a software solution). The cards can form lecture notes, etc.  If asked, I can expand this to a full answer.

@Buffy OP has deleted their account, so you can make it an answer as you wish. Anyway, what do you mean by "psychologically nearly impossible to erase anything in a software solution"?

Maybe Obsidian? They describe it as a "knowledge base on top of a local folder of plain text Markdown files." Notes are local and yours, but you can also publish them such as here. Plus you get some interactive connectivity maps for free!

@Ronald while obsidian is a good choice; If you care about security (maybe not) and/or opensource(maybe not again) but - IF YOU DO obsidian - is not open source (it might be secure) and it has a good feature (map of notes/links) but an opensource alt. is trilium which is really like obsidian -  it even has the link/node map like obsidian has)  and - a note to @ user102 - tried Joplin or Cherrytree? (especially cherrytree and/or trilium) as you point out - you are mote centric to visual memory - soo trilium would maybe be something to look at?

NOTE to my own comment above - it has probably the impression of advertisement (but please do not take it as that; as you ask for applications this is my way of trying to come up with diff. answers)

For nice graphical note editing/drawing:
If you get the hang on it, you probably could use http://prezi.com/
Your notes would look great, and you can always zoom in and out, if you want to add details.

Its an awesome stuff for presentations (I used it a few times). However, does it really work for note-taking for oneself?

Thanks, I'm not sure I would use for note taking, but I definitely have to try it for making presentations! It looks really cool, even though I guess one needs a bit of time to use correctly.

yes, the first presentation took me a while. But I think after having delt with it for some hours, you can be very quick to take notes when you use the default set of containers and not draw your own stuff.

accepted for Springpad, which is probably the closest to what I'm looking for. I guess I will have to code my own in order to be completely satisfied :)

Prezi is great, but not technically non-linear- it requires that you specify a linear path

if you want to follow a path, then it is linear. But you can however draw in any direction, and at any deepness you want. So if you navigate by yourself, and not along the "presentation"-path, then you can use it as a giant "almost" endless notepad!

Mind maps might be what you're looking for.  From the Wikipedia page:

A mind map is a diagram used to represent words, ideas, tasks, or other items linked to and arranged around a central key word or idea... Mind maps are used to generate, visualize, structure, and classify ideas, and as an aid to studying and organizing information, solving problems, making decisions, and writing.

There are lots of mind mapping tools out there.  I've used XMind before.
One drawback is that it's hard to put longer thoughts into a mindmap.

Yes, they are interesting, but somehow too complex to use, especially for longer thoughts. I just tried XMind, and I've tried SimpleMind before, and it seems to lack the ability to quickly write something down, and then to later one connect it to other things (at least in a simple way).

I prefer FreeMind. It is a bit bloated but once you get to know the shortcuts, its as good as writing by hand.

If you think FreeMind is bloated, you can recur to FeePlane

@CharlesMorisset: in FreePlane and FreeMind (and probably XMind as well), you can move around a node (and all it's subnodes) by CTRL+arrow_keys. Or simply cut (ctrl+x) and paste it under the node where you want it. You can also go back/forth between nodes and regular *.txt files (it will lose formatting, but keeps the node branching intact. Note that some are annoying with URLs as they treat them differently, so exporting/reimporting make them visible twice). Usually, [Return] creates a node under the current one, and [Tab] create a "child node" underneath the current node. Ctrl+left moves up

Another option is MindNode, which comes in both Free and Pro versions. I've found it very useful, and has support for on-the-fly writing, as well as outliner export.

For non-linear note-taking and also collaboration I use TiddlyWiki. It is one file that stores all your notes as an interactive wiki. Through a plug-in it support LaTeX-math. If you throw it on a shared dropbox then it can even be a quick way to share ideas with colleagues. If you want something more formal than dropbox, then there are hosted options like TiddlySpace.

I remember trying TiddlyWiki a while ago, and although I thought it was quite good, especially with the ability to use it with Dropbox, it doesn't seem that it's possible to organize in two dimensions the posts :(

I use a MediaWiki as a personal wiki for a while now and I’m quite happy with it. The installation is quite sophisticated though (you will need a local webserver with PHP, a MySQL database and LaTeX).

I use scapple from https://www.literatureandlatte.com/scapple.php
It does exactly what you want. You can put notes anywhere on a canvas.
You can connect them if you want. And you can search them.
It costs about $15 and there is a trial for 1 month so you can see if you like it before you buy it.
It works very well if you use the Crawford slip method of brainstorming.
It's one of the best piece of software I use.

Exactly what I was looking for when arrived at this question.

I needed the same functionality for myself. I was looking for a powerful note-taking system and after considerable search concluded that the wiki format was best for dynamic unpublished notes and scribblings. I started by using desktop applications but needed some way to render math better so I shifted to web applications (running them locally you'll need an XAMP server).
Desktop Applications
Zim Desktop Wiki - A wiki notebook. Really good imo.
WikidPad - Described as an IDE for your thoughts. Offers same functionality.
Server Based
Mediawiki - If you're going to end up with thousands of documents being edited by thousands of users then it is the best. For personal use it is a bit of an overkill, and the spaghetti php code doesnt help.
Instiki - currently using this. Compact and simple. You can easily back it up to an USB disk. Or export all pages to html. Needs ruby to compile though.

Thanks for you answer, but do these wikis have a functional graphical interface? I'm really interested in something that can help me visually organize things, if I want to write notes down, I can use Latex directly.

@CharlesMorisset the GUI is minimal, like text editors but with advanced options.

@Approximist Check out github's wiki engine, gollum (gem install gollum is enough!). 1. Everything is stored as markdown files (no db), can be edited with your favorite text editor. 2. support latex equation by default via mathjax.

Zim is available cross platform at least since it was ported to python. For Windows a native installer is available, where it is compiled into an executable (which provides better integration with the Windows desktop than running a python script). The only downside is, that it sometimes suffers issues when renaming/moving pages, presumably due to the file-system differences (e.g. you cannot rename a file or folder, while any program has opened it even for reading or as working directory).

A couple of other options for mind-mapping software:
I tried using Curio, which is a very powerful program that can do mind-mapping, as well as a whole lot of other activities. The problem I had with it was that it was, if anything, too stuffed with features: I couldn't really figure out how to get simple tasks done, because there was so much work to do just to learn how to do anything at all. However, I'm certain you wouldn't run out of features.
If what you're looking for is something a little less complicated, but still in the sense of mind-mapping, you can try something like OmniGraffle Professional, which produces diagrams and organizational charts of almost any shape or complexity. It doesn't try to be the "all things to all people" that Curio is.
Another "out of the box" solution is Scrivener, which might be a little too text-based for your needs, but is a great tool for writers.

Thanks, Scrivener looks really good, but indeed a bit too writing-oriented. I guess a mix between Scrivener, TiddlyWiki et a mind mapping tool would be perfect :)

Although the question is old, my answer may benefit future readers.
I've recently started to use Gingko App. You can hierarchically organize your notes, which are themselves written in card-like units. The possibilities are many, depending on your organizational creativity. For long-form note-taking this is better than mind maps, while providing all many of the benefits of mind-mapping.

A nice tool I have found for this is Visual Understanding Environment (VUE), which is an open source tool that sounds very much like what you are looking for.  You can position nodes how you like and sketch connections between them.  It even has a nice mechanism for nonlinear presentations by setting pathways between the elements in your file.  The presentation mechanism is not as polished as Prezi, but since you are looking at note-taking rather than presenting, this should not be an issue.
The only thing keeping me from using it more is that there currently is no support for equation editing, LaTeX or otherwise, which is a deal-breaker in my field.  There are workarounds like using Laeqed to generate PNGs of your equations, but it can be cumbersome for large projects.  If this is not a concern in your area, I would recommend giving it a look.

Thanks for the link, I will check it out! The absence of support for equation editing might be a problem though, as I'm also using only Latex.

Here is another one, which I find very helpful and intuitive: CmapTools

Since you are asking here, I assume note taking for paper is important.
Docear is a mind mapping for paper tool which based on Freeplane and Jabref, which might fit academia needs perfectly. And it supports windows, linux and mac. And it' s GPL licensed.

TiddlyMap.org - I just found it after looking at your question... Searching through another site.
It works with TiddlyWiki - the recently developed version.
TiddlyMap will let you make a clickable graph of your wiki tiddlers, and show you real time navigation as well of where you are in your graph.
http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=TiddlyMap
DenkWerkZeug - http://denkwerkzeug.com is an application I have been looking at for a while and learning about. It combines a Wiki with a graph and semantic principles, but is not difficult to learn, a fascinating application.
And one more named Vis-a-Wiki, that I have heard about that combines a visual approach with wiki and graph as well as Scrumban board... Vis-a-Wiki has 'context sensitive navigation'.
I include these together not take away from, but hope as to just let people know about the existence of these independent software projects.
http://marko-editor.com/vis-a-wiki/
Hope this helps... -jariell

The last answer to this ancient question is 3 years old, so let me add a more recent development. In the past few years, many excellent note-taking programs have become available that allow you to do this. This type of software is often branded as allowing you to "build a second brain". (I'm not particularly endorsing that kind of hype branding; just hoping to provide a useful search keyword.)
Conceptually, you may be interested to look into the Zettelkasten methodology. There, the idea is to have short, atomic notes on individual subjects that are extensively linked to each other. There is a large community around this.
In terms of specific software, recent popular non-linear note-taking competitors include Obsidian (which I personally have been using for a while now and think is excellent), Roam, LogSeq, and Scrintal.

I'm not sure how this old question got bumped back to the top, but I can offer an answer: TheBrain is a very nice dynamic concept map with a lot of sophisticated features. Unlike Scapple or some of the other suggestions here, it's currently under active development.
The downsides are that it's a little pricey (but they offer academic discounts if you contact them) and it doesn't have equation editing, although there are workarounds for that.

This question is quite old, but I'll mention a solution that has worked extremely well for me: the vector-graphics program Inkscape.
A new Inkscape document essentially acts like an infinitely-large piece of paper. It allows you to write notes with a pen via a touchscreen or external graphics tablet and also type text on a keyboard using the text tool, along with many of the other useful features of a vector graphics program (lines, boxes, colors, etc). You can easily move objects around and scale them infinitely. The file sizes are quite small, even for relatively large mind maps. You can copy and paste your calculations, drawings, etc.
Perhaps this solution is a bit unconventional, but I've been using it for the past 3 years as my main note-taking software for physics and mathematics research. Once you customize the program settings to your liking and perhaps add a few system hotkeys, it works very well!

Not recommending concrete programs, but tools that have quite a few implementations
Have a look for:

Mindmaps
Desktop Wikis or locally installed Wiki software
Bugtracker
For collaborations possibly forum software
Kanban Software
Other "Getting Things Done" (thats the name of a concept with many helpful tools) software
Citation management Software
Find a concept for organizing your files, such that you find them quickly. Possibly install an alternative file manager that is more intuitive for you

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

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


text:
Evaluating Grad Schools on grounds other than research
Assuming that an applicant does his research and applies to a bunch of schools for a PhD. He gets accepted by a few of them with full aid.
Assuming that the research and faculty at all places is more or less of the same quality, what factors come into play when deciding where to go?
(Also assume that the student is an international student)
How important are the following factors:

Location (Urban/Rural) of School
Country of School
Rankings (For instace, U Tennessee Knoxville has awesome Supercomputing Research but a not-so-good overall Ranking)
Size of Department
Diversity
Student Faculty Ratio

I applied to six graduate schools in my field, and was accepted at all of them. The criteria I used to whittle down the choices were:

Did I like the people in the department I was visiting?  (This surprisingly did eliminate one school.)
Did I want to go to live in the city where the school was for five or so years? (One more down, four left.)
Could I find enough people I was interested in working for, so that if I didn't get my top choice, I'd still be happy with the projects I'd be taking?
Can I financially afford to live in the city? (One more down, two left.)

At that point, however, the remaining criteria were all competing with one another: one school offered me a lot more money, the other had a lot better location. Both offered plenty of research, and both had excellent reputations in their field. Ultimately, for me, the location, combined with the slightly higher general profile of the school I attended, swayed the balance for me.
Remember that you're looking for individual groups or faculty members as well as entire departments. Students and faculty will both be considerations for you.

Why even apply to a school in an undesirable location? Might as well save your money if you don't want to live there.

Well, I obviously didn't realize at the time I applied that I wouldn't like the city in question.

Two that struck me while I was applying for schools of similar rank:

Location. You're talking about living in this place for close to a decade in some cases, and at least several years. Is this someplace you want to live? I haven't found that people living in someplace they hate and are miserable are more productive because they just hide in the lab. I've mostly found them miserable and apt to burn out.
Attitude. Is the department somewhat more "relaxed" and supportive of its students? Will they pull out all the stops to make sure you can make ends meet if something goes wrong in your funding? Or do they consider graduate school to be a fiery crucible upon which researchers are forged? Which environment would you rather work in?
Aid. Advice I got frequently was don't go somewhere that isn't paying you - you don't want them, and when it comes down to it, they don't really want you.

Other factors might include:

Association with an industrial research lab, due to to proximity or high-density of alumni in that lab. That'll make things a lot easier when looking for summer internships!
The climate of the place. A Ph.D is a 4+ years commitment, and whether you'd be spending 6 months every year in freezing cold or not does make a difference once you are actually there!

I'll add more factors you might want to look at as they occur to me!

Average time to completion.  Shorter better.  Many places in the US have 7 year doctorates.  A few still have the traditional 4 year expectation.  Note this will be department specific.
Percent of starting students getting eventual Ph.D.  Higher better.  Again, department specific.
Student population: gender mix, where from, friendliness, etc.  Go with your gut, based on the visit.
Finally if you are single and looking to change that (especially male in a male dominated field), I would pick the urban school because of the better dating prospects.  If you are married, rural will probably be better cost of living but then likely your spouse's job prospects or situation will impact the decision strongly. In general, I think urban is a better overall option as a young professional (even a poor one).

A strong factor for most people will be the financial impact, i.e. how much is it going to cost and are there scholarships available. I would also have a look at the specific field (or subfield) that I'm interested in and compare the faculty and research according to that criteria. In particular the prospective advisor, not so much the rest of the faculty.

I edited my question slightly since I thought it was becoming a list/subjective question. Also, assume that the student has an aided admit and the only thing he will "waste" is time.

In my opinion, the only generally relevant factor for grad school is the "ranking" for the specific field. The location is a matter of personal preference, the size of the department and its diversity is unlikely to have a major impact on a particular PhD (although there may be more chances for collaborating with lots of people) and the student to faculty ratio doesn't really apply. A more relevant factor is probably how many PhD students the future advisor has.

If we are talking about Europe or the US then your PhD experience will mostly be determined by your supervisor and maybe few immediate colleagues. Perhaps it is more likely to find a good group in a higher ranked university, but it is not a direct connection.


text:
How to recruit a PhD student without a strong connection to teaching?
As a postdoc, I'm considering to apply to research-only positions (for instance in a research institute, and not a university), and I know that one of the responsibilities of being a researcher is to recruit PhD students.
I personally only know people (including me) who have been "recruited" for a PhD by one of their teacher (usually at Master level), and so I wouldn't be sure of how to proceed in order to recruit a PhD student as a young researcher:

Are there some specialized websites where to post ads?
Is it better to contact some teachers to see if they have good students to recommend?

Moreover, in this case, which criteria can one use? If I were to teach, I would have a whole semester to know a student, and to decide whether it would make a good fit for a PhD, but how to do that during a one-hour interview?

PhD studentships are quite often advertised like "normal" jobs, i.e. on general job boards/recruting websites. If you have contacts, by all means use them. As for evaluating the candidates, similar guidelines as for evaluating applicants for any jobs apply. I don't think there's a one-fits-all answer. Note that the hiring process may also depend on what institution you'd be working for. They might have an HR department that screens/selects the candidates.

But somehow, it seems weird to evaluate applicants like for any other jobs. I mean, I have the feeling that the connection Phd-student/advisor is a bit different than staff member/boss, no? And how can you evaluate the ability of student to do research? I don't believe that high marks are necessarily a sign of being able to do adopt a research approach (I've seen some cases in the past).

Sorry, I meant to add that special considerations apply, but somehow missed that :)

What I meant in general is that you have to use indicators like examples of work, quality of proposal etc.

Would you have some tips on how to deal with those special considerations? :)

So, you actually ask for a proposal to the candidate? I was thinking of the case where I have a project and a (somehow) specific topic to work on, so you would ask a proposal on how the candidate would address this topic and work within this project?

I haven't done it myself, but I would look for evidence of voluntary involvement in activities that are connected to the proposed research, e.g. collaboration with faculty members that work in the area (e.g. in a final year project). Something else to watch out for is probably recommendations mentioning that the person is able to work independently.

I think I would prefer the candidate to at least contribute to the proposal so that I could assess their ability to write something scientific.

There are a couple of ways to determine whether a particular graduate student is a good candidate for your lab.

Subject knowledge. While this is often unfair to the student, I know many researchers who will only accept students who are familiar with their area of research. This saves time in getting the student up to speed, which can take many months, as you probably know.
Simple personality matches. By the time they're looking into your lab, they've already been accepted into the graduate program and kept their grades up high enough to be applying to labs, which means that (assuming you agree with the standards of the program) they are fairly smart. Your job is determine whether the student would be a good match for your lab in particular, and whether you want to work with them on a daily basis for the next 5+ years.
Rotations. Many programs have graduate student rotations, which will give you an opportunity to interact with many students, and get the chance to know them better than the one-hour interview you mentioned.

Aside from this, read up on general interviewing tips. Almost all the articles you'll find discussing general hiring advice is applicable to recruiting graduate students/postdocs as well.

Thanks for your detailed answer, but I have to admit that I'm not really familiar with the concept of graduate program (my bad, I should have made explicit that I was thinking about Europe). So I'm not sure I could rely on the fact that the student has been already present. I'm going to look now for what is exactly a graduate program/school :)

By "graduate program", I simply mean your department. Faculty positions are tied to departments, and (in many departments) typically you'll be recruiting students who are already graduate students in your department. In my post, I was referring to students who were already accepted to the department.

Yes, I'm really not used to this concept of recruiting students who already are grad students in the department. I mean, in France, there is clear separation between Master and PhD, and you can't be in the doctoral school if you haven't found first a PhD advisor.

I am presuming by your question that you are talking about working in Europe; in North America, scientists at non-academic research labs generally are not generally expected to recruit PhD students. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an easy method for applying for positions outside of posting announcements on sites like academia.edu or TIPTOP.
However, you will need to make sure that you are clear on your future workplace's requirements and regulations regarding the recruiting of graduate students. Many such institutes do not have PhD-granting programs of their own; in that case, you would need to make sure you were affiliated with a program that does grant doctoral degrees before you begin recruitment.

Thanks for the links, and yes, I was indeed thinking about working in Europe :)

I can answer for a specific case: if you are looking to hire PhDs in Theoretical Computer Science, join the THEORYNT mailing list, where you can both send and receive mails about such vacancies. I'm giving an example link that would show you the typical format of such a mail, you can browse through the rest from the website itself.
If you look around, I'm sure there's be a mailing alias for your research specialty as well (if not, maybe you can start one!)

Thanks, I guess I would be considering something like that, I'm just wondering if with no prior experience in full supervising, it would be easy to recruit a student just through a classical ad/interview process.


text:
In practice, how secure is a tenured position in the US?
Coming from France, where any official academic position (i.e. associate professor or full professor, or equivalent positions at public research institutes) is a civil-servant one, and therefore automatically for life, I've been always intrigued by the "tenure" system in the US.
While reading the Wikipedia article, I spotted the following paragraph:

While tenure protects the occupant of an academic position, it does not protect against the elimination of that position. For example, a university that is under financial stress may take the drastic step of eliminating or downsizing some departments.

Does this kind of elimination/downsizing occur a lot in practice? Is it possible to "cheat" and to pretend to cut a position in order to save money just to get rid of a tenured professor? Are there some laws stating that if a position is cut, then another equivalent one cannot be created right after?

Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) and Timothy Leary were Harvard psychology professors which were fired from Tenure due to giving shrooms to undergraduates and doing illegal drug research.

Personally, I'd avoid the abbreviation "ass. professor" - that might be considered rude if one doesn't see the dot at first glance. :)

@SamuelReid ironic, that seems exactly the thing that tenure was invented to avoid: quoting Wikipedia, *Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics.  [...] The intent of tenure is to allow original ideas to be more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions about which they are most passionate, and to report their honest conclusions.

@FedericoPoloni I think the problem was that it was illegal. Doing "controversial research" is one thing, risking your student's health is another.

A tenured prof can get fired for serious misconduct. For example, a tenured biology teacher at my school walked into class with a live chicken and without saying a word, he smashed the chicken's head on the podium, killing it, and spattering a woman in the front row with blood. He was fired.

@BenCrowell While interesting to read, I can't bring myself to upvote your comment...

@Davidmh My understanding is that the students have the right to choose and that this was outside of class time.

I haven't seen any statistics on how many tenure professors have been fired, but most articles on the topic treat tenure as though it's a lifetime position (e.g., this Science article, "Tenure and the Future of the University"). Anecdotally, you will likely never meet someone who knows someone else who was fired from a tenure position; it simply doesn't happen.
Note, however, that the number of tenure track positions made available over the past decade been trending downward fairly significantly (see the same article, and simply do a google search on the topic to see more).

Thanks for the link to the Science article, it indeed seems that tenure is really considered as for-life position.

I know someone who was forcefully encouraged to resign from a tenured position.  They stepped down rather than going through the many-months-long process of having their tenure revoked.

What kind of circumstances were behind this "encouragement"?

I knew someone who as a student got a tenured professor fired. Sex for grades is not tolerated.

If you're a bad tenured professor, as in your students learn nothing, and the head of the department gets many constant complains year after year, you're still safe from replacement?

@Abdul - Practically, and unfortunately, yes.

@eykanal Fortunately, I've never had an ineffective professor, but I guess this answers my wonder of why there are ineffective professors teaching for so long

@Abdul - There was one professor in my graduate program who was so abysmally horrible that people simply didn't come to class at all. Turns out that, aside from being tenured for decades, he was also the former PhD advisor of the department chair. He wasn't going anywhere. There's politics in academia just like anywhere else.

In practice, a tenured appointment is one of the safest job positions out there. Essentially, the number of things which can get a tenured professor "sacked" are exceedingly small, and most of these involve criminal actions. (Even in such cases, the university tends to pressure resignations rather than try to fire them, as has happened, for instance, in high-profile cases at Harvard and Yale.)
Outside of that, you need the aforementioned budget catastrophes that lead to elimination of entire departments. Even then, sometimes departments are allowed to "decay" rather than get eliminated—current staff stays as the department gets wound down, without new hires and additional support.

Wow, if even the cases of Harvard and Yale are not enough to even start a revocation process, I'm wondering what could! Thanks for the links :)

@user102 no, he said that the could, but it had to be a long process with an almost certain outcome, so they asked the professor to just cut it and resign.

LSU recently fired a tenured professor for profanity in the classroom and has been censured by the AAUP, I'm going to donate to the AAUP for her lawsuit, I guess don't work at LSU? : https://www.thefire.org/aaup-censures-louisiana-state-over-buchanan-case-prompting-lsu-to-play-dirty/

It does happen occasionally that entire departments are shut down.  An example I remember being in the news a lot was several language departments at SUNY Albany.  But it's an extreme measure and even with the current severe economic situation it did not happen very often.

This happened at Univ of Florida as well. They abolished departments to mass fire profs, and rehired some of them later.

@memming was this very recent in the Computer Science College?

@ZeRaTuL_jF No, it was humanities. CS also had their own problems...but I don't know the details.

Even if you don't get fired, the department can still make you miserable enough to want to leave. Tenure contracts often only guarantee a small salary, say 50% of the base salary when you were originally hired. Years later, that could be a pittance due to inflation.
Your department could tell you that your research isn't important or significant, and they could require you to do more teaching and service on committees, leaving you very little time to do any research. You could lose your lab space or access to shared equipment. You might not be allowed to take on new students or to hire technicians.
So you'll want to leave, even if they can't officially fire you. You can read some horror stories on this website.

While it's certainly true that universities can make a tenured academic miserable enough to want to leave, labour laws generally recognise cases like that as "constructive dismissal" and it can be actionable.  I am certainly not saying that doesn't happen, but it is something for which there may be legal recourse in many cases.

I've seen one case that almost led to firing a tenured faculty member. The university had found him guilty of misconduct and tried to get him to resign; as far as I can tell this involved incentives more than threats. But when that approach failed, the university began proceedings to revoke his tenure and fire him. The "definition" of tenure at my university amounts to specifying what those procedures must include, and they make the the process so cumbersome that no one would want to invoke them except in extreme cases. In this case, the person finally reached an agreement with the university and resigned, on the day that the Board of Regents was to meet to revoke his tenure. Even so, he apparently got come concessions from the university. In particular, a short time later, the people involved in the tenure revocation hearings, even those like me who were only indirectly involved, were informed by the university's lawyers that, under the resignation agreement, we are not allowed to divulge who this person is.  As far as I know, that gag order is still in force.

My university has recently fired a tenured professor, for the first time since its tenure rules were adopted.

And my university has now adopted a streamlined process for tenure revocation. This may nullify the part of my answer about "so cumbersome that no one would want to invoke them except in extreme cases."

Thoughts on Academic Tenure by Joseph F. Baugher (August 15,  2014):

Tenure can only be revoked for valid cause--normally a professor has
  to do something really wrong or really stupid to lose tenure.  Most
  universities have disciplinary procedures already in place for
  handling such cases—typically a quasi-judicicial proceeding is
  provided, surrounded by due-process protections and an opportunity for
  the accused to provide a defense.   Such cases are quite rare--in the
  US, according to the Wall Street Journal (Jan 10, 2005), it is
  estimated that only 50 to 75 tenured professors (out of about 280,000)
  lose their tenure each year.  Revocation of tenure is usually a
  lengthy, costly, and tedious procedure, very often resulting in a
  lawsuit.  Grounds for dismissal typically include doing something
  illegal like embezzling research funds, stealing school property, or
  conviction of a felony or any offense involving “moral turpitude”.
  The grounds for tenure revocation can also include things such as
  professional incompetence, gross academic malfeasance such as
  plagiarism or the faking of research results, falsification of records
  or credentials, neglect of duty, unprofessional or confrontational
  conduct toward colleagues, sleeping with a student, sexual harassment
  of another faculty member, or other conduct which falls below minimum
  standards of professional integrity.  A tenured faculty member can
  also be dismissed if they develop a physical or mental disability, one
  so serious that even with reasonable accommodations the faculty member
  is no longer able to perform the essential duties of their position.

Carolyn J. Mooney, "Dismissals for Cause", The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 7, 1994, p. A17, as reported by Wikipedia:

In 1994, a study in The Chronicle of Higher Education found that
  "about 50 tenured professors [in the US] are dismissed each year for
  cause."

If this was true at the time, it is not true today.  Far more than 75 tenured professors are loosing their tenure at single campuses.  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/01/29/concordia-college-new-york-will-close-summer-iona-college-purchase-campus https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/02/two-small-colleges-winding-down-operations-coronavirus-impact-looms-over-higher-ed


text:
What's the net income of a W1/W2 german professor?
I've seen a job announcement where the salary was said to be comparable to the assistant/associate professor level W1/W2 in the German system, and I was wondering how much it would exactly make in terms of net income (i.e. after ALL taxes).
I found this link that states that for Western provinces, it was in 2007 between 3400 and 3900 euros gross per month. This other link states that in Hessen (which is where the position is based), the gross monthly salary is
5386 for W2 and 3901 for W1. Then, according to this calculator, a 3900 gross salary means 2167 euros net, after all taxes. So my questions are:

Do these numbers make sense?
Are there intermediary ranks between W1 and W2?
How negotiable is the starting rank in general?
Are there bonuses to take into account when you're single with no child?
Is the tax system identical for german and non-german?

Two comments: 1) Isn't the relevance of this question VERY dependent on the time? I mean, one can only speculate whether or not the information here will reflect the reality in a years time. 2) I guess how much money one would make is also dependent on how much stuff is worth? In other words even if the salary is higher/lower than some other country of reference, the cost of living might also be higher/lower. So it's perhaps subjective to judge the numbers purely.

@posdef: 1) Yes, of course, it depends on the time, and the number probably won't make sense in 20 years. But having some numbers still give a relative idea. However, university positions tend to have a relative stability in terms of increase/decrease, and it's not likely to jump from 2000 to 5000 the following year, and then go back to 1000.

@posdef 2) Yes, but I can always look up on the Internet to have a rough idea of much would a flat cost, and based on my experience, that's a good indicator of the cost of living. So, if I see a nice flat for 800 euros per month, I can get a good idea how much I will spend on other parts, which is why it would be good to have an idea on how much the salary exactly is (especially when it comes to taxes).

Good points, hope it works out for the best :)

The rules for a German professor are quite different than for a typical German employee. The first thing to note is that you will be a Beamter, which is a very special class of government employees. In particular, you are automatically exempted from the public healthcare system, as well as having to make direct payments into the social security system out of your paycheck. Instead, the pension payments are covered by your employer (the government of the Land in which you work), while the Beihilfe system helps to defray part of your insurance costs (the rest of which you pay for through a private insurance contract). In other words: you get billed for your health care; your private insurance reimburses you for 50 percent of your costs, and 30 percent of the costs for other family members. You submit the remainder of the bill to the university, which reimburses the remaining 50 percent (70 percent).
The net result of this is that you get a much higher percentage of your income as take-home pay relative to a traditional government employee. Your tax status depends on your marital status, so as a W1, you can expect to take home somewhere between 2800 and 3200 euros per month, as reported by the Öffentlicher Dienst website. There are some differences due to cost of living in different states. However, expect to pay about 200 € per month for health care, or more if you have a family.
However, I should also note that just this week came down a new ruling from the German Federal Constitutional Court stating that the salaries for professors hired since 2005 are too low, and need to be adjusted. This has the potential to adjust salaries upwards somewhat—although it is not yet clear by how much. (The state of Hesse, against whom the ruling was made, has until January to adjust its salaries upwards.)
To answer your other questions:

There are no ranks between W1 and W2.
The base salary is nonnegotiable, as it's set by the state government for which you will work; however, you can negotiate some terms of your "package" (support for students and other workers), and you may be able to get some "performance bonuses" negotiated into the contract.
Teaching duties are set by federal law, and are similarly nonnegotiable (although you can negotiate the ability, for instance, to teach in English rather than German)
Bonuses are not available for single people with no children; instead, according to German law, they're actually taxed at a higher rate.
There is no difference in salary based on nationality.

Thanks a lot! However, just one question though: what does cover the public part of the healthcare compared to the private one?

The Beihilfe system is paid for by the government, so you submit your medical bills to the university for reimbursement. Edited to add this to the answer.

It's not exactly true that singles are taxed at a higher rate in Germany. The tax rate that couples pay is exactly that for half of their combined income, so the higher earning partner will in fact appear to have a lower rate. If both earn equal, they pay the same tax rate as a single.

Is it not a bit low for a university professor? I mean they generally work more than most of other civil servants. They also have a quite wide range of duties (teaching, supervising, publishing, etc). And of course they have to dedicate more years of hard work (in comparison to other public servants) to reach that level.

@Pouya this is about W1 and W2 professors. Especially W1 are often early career temporary positions where the person qualifies him or herself for a full professorship (W3). The W2 can be a similar temporary/qualifying position as W1 or a (semi) permanent (teaching) position below the level of full professor.

@MaartenBuis and aeismail: I'm a bit confused here; if W1 is temporary, how can it be a Beamter position (as per the 1st paragraph of this answer)? I thought Beamter means permanent.

The Beamter is a class of positions, one of which includes the W1, even though it is limited in duration. But I had the same tax withholding and had to follow the same policies as W2s and W3s even though I was a W1.

@amoeba W1 typically get the Beamter auf Zeit status, W3 typically get (eventually) the Beamter auf Lebenszeit status. W2 is such a mixed bag that that is hard to predict. You just have to look carefully at the exact conditions for that position, which is always a good idea anyway. So a Beamter status does not necessarily imply a permanent position in Germany.


text:
Difference between reference/recommendation
What is exactly the difference between a reference letter and a recommendation letter in Academia? According to Wikipedia:

Letters of recommendation are very specific in nature and normally requested/required and are always addressed to an individual, whereas letters of reference are more general in nature and are usually addressed "To Whom It May Concern".

However, I've often seen applications where it was asked to provide letters, without being explicit about whether it should be recommendation or reference letters (according to the previous definition).
I only ask letters from persons with whom I have worked closely (typically my former advisors), because I believe they are the best persons to ask about me, but it seems that some people also include letters from persons they just know.
In other words, what exactly is expected when a job application asks to "give references who can provide recommendation letters"?

As per the definition given on the webpage of McGill University:

A "letter of recommendation" is one that is specifically requested by someone for a determined/defined employment position, academic program or award application. Generally, these letters are sent directly to the requester and not seen by the student. They can be categorized as:

Employment Related
Academic Admission
Commendation or Recognition
Performance Evaluation

A "letter of reference" is normally more general in nature and not addressed to a specific requestor. Often you will see these letters addressed as "To Whom it may Concern" or "Dear Sir/Madam". These letters are most often given directly to the student and kept for future use. Situations where they are used tend to be:

Character Assessment
Academic Related
Employment Related
General Purpose

As this site also explains, a recommendation letter is more specifically related to skills and qualifications of a person with respect to a definite position/program, whereas a reference letter is usually more general in nature and refers more to the overall character of a person.

With due deference to Wikipedia, colloquially, the two terms are used interchangeably.

Well, according to the link on Wikipedia I gave, they refer to two different concepts :) But I agree that it's likely that they are usually interchangeable, at least for non-academic fields. I was wondering in academia, where reputation is more valued, there was a difference.

@CharlesMorisset - In academia, they are used interchangeably, and outside of academia, they're used interchangeably as well :)  I don't know who added that to wikipedia, but that distinction is meaningless in the real world.

In my experience, a person can serve as a reference and be contacted by the potential employer/school, usually by phone.  Alternatively, a person can write a letter of recommendation which they mail themselves.
So when a job application asks to "give references who can provide recommendation letters," they most likely want their contact information.

but what about when they ask explicitly "reference letters"? Do they mean "recommendation letters sent by references"?

@CharlesMorisset Yes, they typically do.  As eykanal notes above, these terms are generally used interchangeably.


text:
How to achieve successful collaborations?
Quite often, at conferences or while attending seminars, I will start an interesting discussion with the speaker, first on-site, then later by email, and even though at some point there seems to be some mutual interest, it almost never gives an actual collaboration (i.e. working on an actual paper).
I have no particular problem of working with different people, so I was wondering if it was quite usual to have this huge ratio of "collaboration failure"? In particular, my problem is that, although it's quite simple to have an idea, it seems quite hard to do the next step, that is to actually work with someone you have no connection, and who might even live in a different country. Are there some techniques to make a "temporary" collaboration work, or at least to detect those which are unlikely to work?

Work with people outside academia.

In my experience, starting a collaboration is incredibly easy: you use your network of contacts to identify someone who'd be willing and interested in solving a problem. You talk at a conference or meeting, or arrange a visit to their laboratory.
Maintaining a collaboration, however, is next to impossible. It only works if you have a history of successful results early on, or if you have already had a long history of acquaintance with one another before the collaboration began. (In other words, were you friends or colleagues before the work started?)
Otherwise, I would recommend making sure that you start off with "low-hanging fruit": problems that can be solved mutually within the framework of existing funding on both of your parts, with value for both of you. This is important because one of the challenges of getting grants is that reviewers for funding agencies typically want to see an existing record of collaboration—mutual publications and effort—before they're ready to award money to a new collaborative proposal. There are exceptions to this, but they're by no means common.
After that, you have a track record of working together which will let you grow the collaboration into something further.

How do you typically find people to solve the low-hanging fruit stye problems?

Added a discussion of how to start the collaboration.

Thanks, the idea of focusing on the low-hanging fruits first seems good. I guess most of the time, I stay too much at an abstract level of discussion.

Yeah, I think getting some low-hanging fruit really helps to build psychological momentum.  We all have more things to do with our time than we have time to do them.  We naturally tend to do the things that seem more likely to bring good return on our investment.  Once you have some result (almost anything nontrivial will do), you start to believe that future work will be worth the effort.

IMHO successful and fruitful long term collaborations require at least two important features

mutual trust
complementary competences

Trust is essential at various stages of the collaboration: i) you should
be happy to make a fool of yourself in front of your collaborators during brainstorming
ii) you should  be fairly certain that they will pay credit to your own efforts
within the collaboration iii) you should be happy to strongly disagree and fight about
it without strong feelings for the sake of challenging ideas.
From personal experience (and watching colleagues) it is easier to cultivate and develop trust during your PhD and postdocs while socially interacting with your fellow students and postdocs.
A first advice would then be do not under-estimate extra curricular activities with your colleagues, as they can in fact be the foundation of upcoming shared ideas within long term collaborations.
Complementary skills is key in order to value what your collaborators provide to the collaboration. If your asset is starting papers, you need to find someone who is good at finishing them or vice-versa.  It also avoids unnecessary competition within the collaboration. On a more positive note, it sheds distinct light on a research project
which is globally useful.
Finally, if possible

focus on people you can communicate well with: research is about beating about the bush for a long time before seeing the light. Precise understanding speeds things up a bit!
avoid too large time-zone differences!
Having said that, I am always amazed how (in contrast to crowds!) collaborators are collectively so much smarter than individually! A difference in perspective is key.

I agree with all except for the comment about time zones.  Just one example: I'm currently writing a great 3-author paper with collaborators in Oxford, UK and Vancouver, Canada (I'm in Saudi Arabia).  Of course, we see each other face-to-face at least once a year for an extended period of time, but most of the work happens across massive time zone differences.

Time zone difference can be very effective scientifically. I find it's a burden on family life! ;-)

I was part of a five-person collaboration across Hong Kong, Vancouver, the Bay Area, Utah, and New Jersey :). We met regularly once a week, and it was quite a lot of fun. Skype is our friend.

Many times I had e-mail conversations but they never went into a serious collaboration (i.e. ending with a paper). All papers I have are with persons I know from a frequent face-to-face contact (plus with the people they know from frequent face-to-face contact).
Perhaps it has to do with:

psychological barriers (as also it is easy to have a conversation with a big name on a conference, but much harder to engage in a distant correspondence),
funding/time issues,
that collaboration usually requires a lot of contact (sometimes very hand-waving), especially in the beginning,
with a frequent face-to-face contact it is much easier to gauge others' interest and choose the right persons.

(Entirely anecdotally, as a PhD student with only 7 papers so far. It may not apply to other situations.)

+1: Time issues is a real barrier. It is hard enough to find time for projects with the colleagues next door, so maintaining a long distance collaboration is even harder!


text:
Does Pop-Science involvement hurt one's reputation?
There is a divide between the scientific community about involvement in popular science. I would define it as involvement in NatGeo/Discovery type documentaries, writing columns for newspapers/magazines, blogging about articles of popular nature (Like End of the World, Tsunami or whatever).
Does involvement in such issues harm one's reputation in academia?
I have frequently seen grad students shy away from such opportunities because they think they will be made fun of or won't be taken seriously when they go and speak about "actual" research.
(Although I am talking about grad students, the scenario isn't very different for faculty as well IMO)
Some people like Stephen Hawking or Richard Wiseman have actually authored best selling books. Whereas a majority of people in academia stay in the confines of the journals.

Is this "pop science" done instead of peer-reviewed research?  Or taking time away from "real" research?  If so, wait until after you are tenured!

If certain fields of academia do in fact frown upon "popularizing" science, then they are shooting themselves in the foot.
One of the most important ways of securing funding in different disciplines is through getting support by the federal governments in which they are working. Convincing politician X that you should fund research on doohickey X and widget Y to solve problem Z rather than funding their new shopping mall or football stadium requires convincing them that your research is important and worthwhile. The key to doing this is having a message to sell—something that the lobbyists and staff persons working for the government officials can take to them and say "this is what you need to know about why this is important."
An excellent way of doing this is to take part in writing columns, producing features for television, and other "popular" methods of outreach. You'll have to figure out how to distill your message in a way that's exciting for the viewer or reader, and that will help no only you but your peers as well.

@aeismall: Having a hard shell isn't the same as being strategic about your career. The toughest researcher can do nothing without funding. IMO once you reach a certain level of research competence, it stops being the deciding factor in who gets grants.

@mac389: The comment was leftover from an earlier discussion.

I think the answer is, if its done in balance, no. I've had experience as a graduate student with two projects that could be considered "popular science", and they've done...interesting things, career wise. Good as ice breakers ("Oh, you did that!?" - in a generally positive tone) and one yielded some interesting professional contacts.
I think there are two critical elements that need to be there:

It needs to be popular science - it needs a rigorous scientific backing behind it. The popular, fun, Discovery Channel part of my work is backed by peer reviewed publications and conference talks to scientific audiences. That's a good way to reflect criticism of the work as being "soft".
As a graduate student, you need to do other things as well. It's dangerously easy, I've found, to make that your "thing" - but if you're going to be a one trick pony in grad school, that pony probably needs to be serious research. "So what are you working on now?" probably needs to have a straight research answer, rather than another popular science project.

One situation I have come across in which it can potentially make the academic look negative would be when one is interviewed by a journalist, and the journalist is the one writing the article. Hence, one can be quoted out of context (twisting your words to mean something entirely different) or more frequently just being quoted in a silly way (since the journalist only has a fairly superficial understanding of what you are talking about). Especially if you are involved in something that is controversial (e.g. global warming, racial bias) one should be more aware of this potential.
Besides that I have seen slight negative sentiment towards when an author writes a piece that is sensationalist in some ways (which aren't seen as science, or unethical). Examples I have come across are the Freakonomics books (or one of the sub-stories from the initial book titled Gang leader for a day). I suspect the benifit of exposure outweighed any negative sentiment though in those examples. This probably isn't pertinent to many scholars though (how many people write whole books that could be possibly construed in such a negative light before they are well established?)
I have never encountered negative sentiment for smaller articles (like short peices in the newspaper or blogs). Most people I know are really happy to get an article/editorial in the paper (or other widely read magazine like NatGeo).

I tried hard but couldn't resist pasting this. So true, isn't it?

@Nunoxic, I've certainly seen confusion over much simpler topics than that!

There is a field in which academics are paid to find "the Equation for the perfect X" so that the company that makes X can write a news story about it. I am not sure how academics generally feel about this, but it certainly gives off sellout vibes. On the other hand, if Stephen Hawking is allowed to do it then maybe it's OK?


text:
How to make a presentation that includes math symbols?
For many years, I've used Latex to create my presentations, because I need to include mathematical formulae and symbols. However, it's sometimes quite cumbersome to use, and it's much harder to do "visual" effects (I'm not talking about animations, but for instance about arrows emphasizing a particular word, or connecting two words together, etc) compared to, say powerpoint.
I'm now trying to keep the maths to a minimum in my presentation (that was actually a really good advice given by a good speaker I talked to), but I still need them a bit, so my question is: what good (combined?) solution exist to create nice presentation that involve mathematical symbols?

Somewhat related questions on tex.stackexchange.com: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/beamer

I've found that the secret is (1) good tools to create equations, plus (2) liberal use of arrows and text, plus (3) animations linking the two.
I've found the following two programs to be indispensable for writing talks:

LateXiT for the Mac
KLaTeXFormula for a number of OSs, similar to latexit but less functional

The goal is to make the math (1) visually distinctive, so that the reader can easily tell when you're discussing an equation, and (2) easy to interpret. Remember, in a paper, you have text such as  "...where n is the number of..." after the equation is shown. This typically isn't done in research talks, and even worse, once you're off the slide, the reader has to simply remember what the equation was; they can't flip back a page.
My technique (you can see it in action in this presentation) is to put equations in a unique font (I use Times New Roman, with bolding and italics), and using the above tools to typeset equations in latex and insert them as images as necessary. As you introduce each equation, explain all the variables using text and arrows. Every variable should be explained... yes, this is slow, but learning is slow. If you're going to re-use the same equation multiple times, put it in the top-right corner of the slide - with arrows and text sometimes included - so that (1) they remember what you're talking about, and (2) so you can refer back to those equations.

Just as some kind of follow-up, I'm currently using Keynote to prepare a one-hour talk, and with the trick of copying formulae from the PDF, it's just great, thanks again for the advice!

@CharlesMorisset - glad it's useful!

If you're on OS X, then a great solution is to use the LaTeXiT package, which allows you to create graphics files for individual LaTeX equations, which can then be copy-and-pasted into your favorite presentations program (Keynote, LibreOffice, Powerpoint, or even LaTeX Beamer if you have a suitable penchant for irony).
For other systems, options include KLatexFormula, and of course the well-known (but also not free) MathType.
But I prefer LaTeXiT, as it gives you the classic LaTeX look and precision control, while also making it very easy to cut and paste your work. (You can even save equations if you want to use them later.)

I personally use latexit, omnigraffle and beamer. The latter is just to include all the beautiful pdf I generate with omnigraffle+latexit ;)

I tried using Beamer, I've found that the judicious use of some well-chosen animations can add a lot to a presentation. I've been using Keynote and I've been extremely happy with it.

@SylvainPeyronnet: I've recently started using OmniGraffle and the companion OmniGraphSketcher. I like them a lot so far, and I look forward to doing more with them. (I'll switch back and forth between Beamer and Keynote, depending on the amount of graphical content as well as my collaborators.)

Thanks for the answer! About Omnigraffle, I've used in the past (when it was still included with Mac Os X), but now I prefer to use PGF/TikZ, but also because I use beamer. Maybe I should switch off from the Latex world (apart for the formulae), at least to try the tools now.

btw, I think both your answer and eykanal's are correct (since they are basically similar:)), I just accept his because it's a bit more detailed.

I personally use LaTeXit, OmniGraffle, and Keynote.

It involves some Latex programming, but you can do all of these things with Beamer and Tikz; see for instance http://www.texample.net/tikz/examples/beamer-arrows/ and https://sites.google.com/site/kaarebmikkelsen/in-the-news/fancyequationsinlatexbeamerwithtikz.
Sample image from the first link:

Essentially, Tikz allows you to remember the positions of the elements in each picture (using \tikzstyle{every picture}+=[remember picture]), and then add popups, markers and arrows between them as an overlay over the already typeset page (using \begin{tikzpicture}[overlay]).
The main benefit with respect to other solutions is the quality and consistency of Latex typesetting, which we all know and love.
The main drawback is the (possibly) cumbersome Latex programming, which we all know and loathe.
Also, it's all plain text (with simplifies automation, version control...)

An answer involving "not LaTex" based on both finding it utterly unnecessary in my field (which does involve a fair amount of math) and finding an endless stream of LaTeX-based presentations to feel very boring and same-y.
Have you considered MathType? I've found it far stronger for equation layout than the default Microsoft tools, and it plays pretty well with both Powerpoint and Keynote, which lets you work in the strengths of actual dedicated presentation software. It is admittedly not free, but I've had fairly strong success with it.

You might also want to try InkScape for creating presentations with plug-ins, such as JessyInk or other - simply search for "presentation in inkscape". Besides that, InkScape allows you to render LaTeX math, it has the support built in in the new versions. This solution might sound a bit complicated at the beginning, but you'll get the power to create extremely fancy visual presentations in the style of Prezi but locally and you can play them in your favourite browser.

If you are in Windows, you can try Aurora, although it's not free.
The good thing about Aurora is it fits perfectly with Microsoft Word, you can insert inline equation or numbered equation and when you update the equations, the numbers can be altered easily.
Also, when you insert an equation using Aurora, other people who don't have Aurora can still open the file seeing the perfect equation since it's embedded as a picture to non-Aurora user.
The best part is when you insert an equation with Aurora, it won't mess up the line margin or other typesettings, which is quite often when using MathType.

Hi, Sean: Thanks for posting, and welcome to the Academia board. If you're an Aurora user, you could also make some suggestions about what you like about the code, so as to provide more than just a link. (That's not really considered "best behavior" on Stack Exchange.)

Sorry, I have edited my post and add something up.

Microsoft Office 365 supports Unicode Math for Powerpoint, and also LaTeX syntax for Word. For most simple equations, it is possible to directly type them in as text and edit as necessary, without converting them to images. This includes equations involving integrals, derivatives, limits, trigonometric functions, etc.
While Powerpoint does not seem to support LaTeX syntax, it is possible to copy and paste LaTeX equations written in Word. For a presentation that is lightweight in math content, this could be a good option to keep the other features of Powerpoint without compromising on math expressability. However, Microsoft Office 365 needs a paid subscription.
A few helpful references:

Linear format equations using UnicodeMath and LaTeX in Word
Write an equation or formula
Unicode Nearly Plain-Text Encoding of Mathematics Version 3

IguanaTex is a free AddIn for PowerPoint which allows for seamless integration of LaTeX in PowerPoint slides.
It is very simple to use and feels very natural.


text:
How do you get a bad transcript past Ph.D. admissions?
I have a master's degree in International Studies, and a double major with Computer Science from undergrad.  My transcripts suck.  There's no other way to dress it up.  I have pretty good teaching experience, and my GRE scores are awesome, and I suspect my recommendations are as bland as everyone else's.  Basically, to an admissions committee, I suspect I'm the model of a student who is probably smart enough but didn't work hard enough.
I want to do a Ph.D. in Political Science, but the response from my applications is looking pretty grim.  Am I permanently out of the running, or is there something I can do for the next few years which will help to counterbalance my unfavorable GPA?

"I suspect my recommendations are as bland as everyone else's" — If true, that's at least as significant an issue as your grades.

http://www.ginandtacos.com/2010/10/29/npf-the-open-cover-letter/

It's very difficult to interpret this question without knowing the GPA. "My transcripts suck" could indicate a GPA of 3.5, or a GPA of 1.0. Suckiness is a relative term.

Short answer:

Know what area you want to work in and be fluent with it.
Construct an honest, compelling narrative illustrating your strengths, how you've learned from mistakes or pitfalls, and why you're a good candidate for your chosen PhD programs.
Talk to as many professors as you can about their interests and yours, especially those you'd like to work with.

More details:
There is some excellent advice here and here. Basically, Bradley Voytek (who is now a professor in neuroscience at UCSD) managed to get into UCSF (a top school for neuroscience) with an overall GPA that hovered around 2.5. As Bradley Voytek said, your ultimate goal is this:

Do everything in your power to leave a paper trail of excellence to
overcome your grades. Your goal is to make those grades look
meaningless. Your goal is to have your work speak for you so strongly
that, when people look at your grades, they feel silly for even giving
them a second thought.

This was precisely why I was willing to give my unofficial transcript to professors at my school who asked for them (when I needed letters of recommendation). They already knew me well enough to know that my GPA doesn't reflect my true ability.
As another suggestion, if you're applying for a school that puts a lot of weight on a subject GRE exam (like the Physics GRE), you can do your utmost to score obscenely high on the test and still get in. As an example, see this guy who managed to get into Harvard with a 3.1 GPA.
For the record, I'm an undergrad with a 3.16 GPA (with 3 grades of 0.0s and 3-4 courses I retook with grades of 3.0-3.1 on the retake because I didn't even bother going to class on either class attempt). Despite all this, I managed to get into both the University of Chicago and Brown University - both with fellowships for being one of the top applicants. I also almost got into Yale in a year that was unusually competitive for them (they paid for me to visit+interview there) - but there were research fit issues involved at the end (actually - what ended up happening was that I had such intensely-defined research interests - exoplanet climate modelling - that it would have been hard for anyone there to take me individually, and everyone felt that I would be going to Chicago anyways). Click here for a rough profile of my "stats".
You should also try schools that do interviews (especially in-person interviews) before they do acceptances, since the interview is where you have the opportunity to shine (and where they can at least give you a chance). Yale is one of those schools.
You should also look into very interdisciplinary graduate programs that are expanding faster than what their textbooks (and courses) can keep up with. Newer fields also tend to be low-consensus fields, which also tend to be more tolerant to those with low GPAs. The geosciences is one of the few areas where plenty of people with sub-3.5 GPAs often do get into top schools. As the geosciences aren't taught in high school, it's often said that the Geosciences is something that you "stumble" into, and it's actually very common for people to enter the geosciences only after finding that they didn't like another major (this is often true for geoscience professors as well).
Biology is another area that's often tolerant of those with low GPAs, from what I've heard. In both Biology and the Geosciences, research fit often matters a lot more than "being one of the top applicants", so if you have a focused interest that you've demonstrated through research (and that matches the interests of faculty members who are willing to take new students), then yes, they can be willing to take you over people with better GPAs and test scores. The thing in common with the two is that they're so broad that it's impossible to put every applicant through a common set of required courses (or through paper-based qualifying exams), so their quals cannot be based on coursework. In that case, performance in prior courses doesn't matter as much. In fact, some geoscience programs (like Berkeley EPS) don't even have admission committees because the interests of faculty members are so diverse that applicants often only have research fit with a single faculty member - so it then often becomes a single faculty member who decides between applicants.
The MIT Media Lab is the perfect example of this, in fact (though most geoscience/biology programs will have more of a committee than the MIT Media Lab). The tips in this link can be quite helpful to anyone with a low GPA who wants to work with a particular adviser.
You should also look for fields with very low people-to-problems ratios. Many of these fields don't offer courses that are part of the core requirements of numerous majors, so there won't be hordes of undergrads who take their courses. Fields like atmospheric science and various areas of biology are particularly known for their low people-to-problem ratios, and the professors in them can be incredibly accessible (and are more willing to closely look at unusual applicants). More here.
Also, just write 2000-word personal statements. I wrote 2000-word personal statements for all the schools I applied for (they were necessary since I had to do some explaining), and they didn't prevent me from getting in. They can annoy some schools, but that's going to be a matter of fact if you're a highly unusual applicant.
Finally, you can always stay somewhat longer. My GPA would never recover from the early mistakes I made, but I managed to recover by staying longer and by taking a huge number of grad-lvl courses in my last 2 years. When writing your personal statement, you should always put in statistics like last-2-year GPA and last-X-year major GPA in whatever field of study you're in (I put in post-(freshman year) physics GPA of 3.77 in). Be careful not to sound like you're cherry-picking though.
If you need some extra inspiration, you should read about Stephen Smale too.

He entered the University of Michigan in 1948. Initially, Smale was a
good student, placing into an honors calculus sequence taught by Bob
Thrall and earning himself A's. However, his sophomore and junior
years were marred with mediocre grades, mostly Bs, Cs and even an F in
nuclear physics. However, with some luck, Smale was accepted as a
graduate student at the University of Michigan's mathematics
department. Yet again, Smale performed poorly his first years, earning
a C average as a graduate student. It was only when the department
chair, Hildebrant, threatened to kick out Smale, that he began to work
hard. Smale finally earned his Ph.D. in 1957, under Raoul Bott.

One word of caution: Graduate programs have gotten a lot more competitive in the last few years, so what applied 5 years ago (or 40 years ago, for that matter), may not necessarily apply today.
By the way, elite private schools (for whatever reason) tend not to have GPA cutoffs. If you're a student with a low GPA applying for an elite private school, you probably have something else in you that's extremely unusual, since very few students with low GPAs apply to them. In fact, when I emailed professors, those at elite private schools seemed to be more responsive to my emails (low student to faculty ratio could be a reason behind that). That said, they're not necessarily more forgiving of unusual applicants. It's often the programs that have some "weakness" in their applicant pool that tend to be more forgiving of them.
Also - I would definitely look for areas where the department is trying to expand into, but where the department has no reputation for as of yet (visits/contacting professors can help you learn more about that).
Going to academic conferences can also really help as well - but only when you can make sure that you have useful things to say. The same is also true for visiting schools before applying.

Very interesting--I myself ended up in the geosciences, though not on account of a lackluster semester or three.

Who is Bradley Voytek? Is everybody supposed to know that? I must be missing something big.

I was looking through the physics thread you posted and someone with a  publication in Science was rejected by more than half the universities he applied to!! how can this be???

In your last statement, what do you mean by something useful to say? Are you referring to something likely to advance the research of the people you interact with?

It depends on where your weaknesses are. If they're in both the master's and the bachelor's degrees, you're in a lot of hot water, because it says, as you suggest, "student not serious enough about studies." (As someone on an admissions committee, I can tell you I need a heck of a lot of convincing to overlook a weak grade in a "core" subject, let alone an overall mediocre transcript.)
The "best" way to get a weak transcript through an admissions committee is to have somebody who can vouch for you to the committee whose judgment the committee will respect. So, that means working either for a Very Big Name in the field, or working for someone at a particular institution which you'd later be interested in attending. If they can see that you're someone worth having around, that can sway an admissions committee a lot more than a good package from a complete unknown.
Given your field, this may not be the easiest task to pull off, but I don't see many other options.

That's essentially how I did it.  That and a lot of dumb luck.

Some universities impose a minimum undergraduate GPA requirement for all incoming PhD students.  For example, the University of Illinois requires a GPA of at least 3.0 (out of 4.0) for the last two years of undergraduate study for all PhD programs.  Applicants that fall below this line are usually culled from the applicant pool before any faculty see their application.  Departments can petition for a waiver for individual applicants, but the case has to be pretty compelling.
Of course, every university is different.  Choose your targets wisely.
(My undergrad GPA was well under 3.0.)

What if the student has publications and know his advisor in that university well before he applies for PhD? will his low GPA (lower than 3.0) still prevent him out of the applicant pool?

Based on the small number of such students I've seen in my own department: Yes, it would keep them out.  But every department is different.

Are you the same professor that posted this? http://3dpancakes.typepad.com/ernie/2005/03/re_phd_with_low.html

@cspirou Yes, that's me.

@JeffE Please tell about some of the target universitiess where a good masters grades is taken more into consideration than a below 3 point undergrad grade and also where GRE is given more importance over undegrad GPA if someone has masters.

I can answer as far as Computer Science(CS) is concerned - don't know how applicable that might be in your scenario.
In CS, you can make up for your transcripts being less-than-average by undertaking research projects/internships in the next few years, ideally in the area you want to pursue you Ph.D. in. Once you have some good results that are published, you can use them to bolster your application - indeed, if they are good enough, they might even trump a candidate with stellar grades and no research experience!
Also, such an endeavor would remedy another aspect of your applications that you don't seem too concerned about - your Letters of Recommendations. "Bland", "did well in class" letters would kill your application a lot faster than your grades, and I don't see how you would make up for it unless you involve yourself in research projects before the next admissions cycle!

I haven't seen "DWIC" before, so I checked it out and expanded it. We should probably avoid lingo like that, at least in the beta stage.

I had a very mediocre transcript from a very good school.  I worked five years, then applied to a good school in a foreign country paying international fees for a masters degree.  Then I worked very hard and got decent grades and great letters of reference and got into MIT for my PhD.
In general, if you work a few years and/or do another degree, your first degree doesn't matter any more, your more recent work does.  This can be for good or for ill.
One really excellent thing I've seen:  Northwestern University in Chicago allows you to sign up for night courses no questions asked, then after you've taken five will review your work on their courses and decide whether to admit you based almost purely on those courses.  I assume some other universities might do this.

Wow, that's a really nice opportunity that Northwestern presents. I'll have to remember that.

When evaluating graduate applications, I weight recent evidence more than stale evidence.  One way to recover from bad undergraduate grades is to take classes through a community college or extension program and get great grades or recommendations.

You need to have good connections. I.e., a senior, well-respected person in the field who can put their word for you. Or a terrific work experience -- being say the top 10 person on Obama's or Romney's election team would certainly speak for itself in your field. Bad grades + mediocre work experience + bland letters = wasted time and money on the application process.
A former student of mine whom I taught at University A applied to the department I used to work at in University B. He got rejected on the grounds of having a D in the one of the classes in our department's major in the University A. (He later retook the class and got something like a B.) About 20% of our faculty got their degrees from University A, and another 40% are in the same narrow field that the said University A department specializes in, so that bad grade was certainly a big "no-no" for them. I think that student was even bringing some outside federal fellowships money with him, but it did not matter. The student got accepted a year later to University C, which is a better program than University B, and finished his Ph.D. a few months ago -- went to work in industry, never had much thrust to work in academia, though.
One other approach you can try is to find the PoliSci department with a heavy computing component, so that you could leverage your computer science experience. These would be the top departments, though, which would make it even more difficult. Pick a computation-heavy book published recently by a department member, go through it, replicate some of the results, think about some of the extensions and/or computational efficiencies you can develop, email back to that guy -- that could be your stepping stone towards the good connections that I started with.

Do not limit yourself to top 20 schools. There are over 200 degree granting schools in the USA and a good percentage have Ph.D programs. While applying to grad school I even found a school with a 2.5 GPA cutoff. Just be realistic about where you are able to get in. What matters ultimately is not where you go to school or who your advisor is but rather the quality of work you are able to produce. Yitang Zhang was an unknown adjunct professor at the University of New Hampshire when he published his remarkable paper on prime numbers. Afterwards he could have been a professor for any school he wanted to but chose to stay at UNH.

Now this might be both my field (computational biology) and/or local culture but I found that my grades were easily ignored during my PhD application.
What I think is the most important part is to tailor your application to the job. If your grades are bad, don't mention them (unless of course they explicitly ask for them) and instead focus on relevant skills. Perhaps you learned relevant (and perhaps uncommon) skills during previous projects/internship/thesis work. You may even have acquired relevant skills through extracurricular activities.
Focus on what makes you the perfect candidate for this job.
Also, for your recommendations; make sure you get your recommendations from people who will actually recommend you. I think a less known researcher who is positive about you is better than a big name that's negative about you.


text:
What is the best career choice for a social psychology graduate?
I have a background in Psychology and Fine Arts. My passion lies with doing scientific research and making art. So ideally I would be able to do both, or use one to support the other. However, I've found that finding a job in the social sciences is pretty difficult, if not impossible without work experience (pretty much a vicious cycle).
But since finding a steady income with a degree in fine arts is even more difficult, I would very much like to provide a steady income for myself by working in the social sciences. I've had countless bad jobs to support myself through both of my degrees, and I don't see myself becoming very happy doing that my whole life.
At this point, I have several options, and I would like some advice on what you think would be the best way of proceeding (the points are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and if you have a better idea, please, do suggest it):

I could further specialize myself: do a masters (or even a PhD) in a field which aligns with my academic and research background. However, this could risk another worthless degree with no job and waste of time and money
I could move to another geographic location, where a degree in my field is in higher demand, get a job and support my other passions.
I could freelance to build experience but this is usually as taxing as a normal job minus job security and pay.

Could the individuals who voted to close provide some rationale or advice? The question is too localized as it stands, but it probably could be improved to get at the one general quest at its heart.

The title brings to mind the age-old dilemma: PhD or the lottery?

The question you have to ask yourself is what is the "opportunity cost" of the different options:

You can apply for jobs without first relocating to the new area, if you're willing to spend some money on travel for the interviews before accepting a job.
What are the costs of getting a new degree, versus the improved likelihood (if any) of employment with the advanced degree, compared to the lost income while acquiring the degree.
Could you make enough money freelancing that you can keep yourself relatively financially stable while you're organizing something else?

I'd certainly think that starting out freelancing while you figure out a "Plan B" would be the logical, low-entry-cost route. After you've done that for a while, you can decide if either of the other routes make more sense for you.

In general I would counsel against further study. I have seen many people finish an undergraduate degree, look for a job they like/a job, and when they have no luck go back to study. This has almost always ended badly. In most cases they have no understanding of how a further degree will allow them to get the jobs they are interested in, and are merely spending a lot of money to prolong (or make worse) the problem.
If you are incredibly passionate in an area go for it. However the fact that you are posting this/reading this suggests that you are not.

The advice given by some is misleading. A PhD is psychology is almost always a paid position. So while you may be earning less than you would in industry, you will earn a stipend (albeit often minimal) while you complete your degree. A Masters degree in psychology, on the other hand, is typically paid for out of the student's pocket. If you are interested in doing research, as you say, I would be hesitant to get a Masters unless you are very confident in a specific career path that requires an MA (and not a PhD).
That said, all of the criticisms that others have raised still apply. For social psychology in particular, I would not recommend applying for a PhD without having a decent amount of research experience. Consider applying for a research assistantship at a university. The purpose of this is two-fold. Most importantly, it's to know what you're getting yourself into and make sure you would enjoy doing research full time for several years. Additionally, it greatly improves your application when applying to mid- or top-tier universities. They want to know that you are both capable of doing research and enjoy doing research.

What you ultimately need to ask is why do you want the MFA, MA or PhD.
For a long time I didn't want these. I saw the MFA as something that many of my friends got with no real objective except to avoid the so-called "real world" and get to stay in a studio as long as they can. I can't do that and it sounds like you can't either.
So then the question is what reason should you get the advanced degree?
The answer is simple: I want to do advanced research in (topic).
If your answer is anything but the above then it isn't for you. So I can teach is not a strong reason for an MFA or PhD. So I can get a higher paying job is not a strong reason for an MFA or PhD. It is a research degree and ultimately that needs to be your reason for pursual.


text:
How to assess the quality of a degree?
In my academic career, I have found that it is pretty difficult to assess the quality of a degree before enrolling. Usually only during the course of your study do you learn what the actual quality of the degree is, which are the best schools, and what your chances in the job market are going to be like.
Getting in touch with students studying at the university is usually pretty difficult if you're not enrolled, and i don't really trust the responses of the professors (who have a vested interest).
What would be a good way to judge the usefulness of a degree? And how can you reliably assess the chances of getting a job with that degree?

This question would be much clearer if you told us your definition of "quality".  What do you want?

@JeffE, i didn't want to state any absolute definitions of quality, because, to me the quality of a degree is a pretty relative concept. To me the best degree does a better job at learning you what you want to learn, and gives you better chances in the job market than the other degrees (in the same field/subject of course). So it's more about comparison than absolutes to me.

"Better job at [teaching] you what you want to learn" and "gives you better chances in the job market" are not necessarily compatible.

Many universities will publish statistics on how many of their graduates are employed or in further education within X months after graduating. If you're only concerned about getting a job, then that's probably your best source of information.
That said, in the end it depends on you. People get jobs with crappy degrees and fail to get jobs with really good degrees. Whether you'll be able to get a job in your chosen field will depend on what exactly you do for your degree.
A good opportunity for improving your chances of getting a job after you graduate is to do an internship while you're at university. Many universities have job centres or similar that can help you with that.