text:
Should I sign this letter or force them to fire me? What are the differences between my prospects with the two options?
I was a first year PhD student and have mentioned before I was forced to quit although hardwork and grants. Now the head of the school admit that the supervisor was wrong and he had nothing to do with the supervisor which is awkward, he also confused about another student who hadnot passed his viva after years of work and publishing in top tier conference.
In to the retrospect, they asked me whether to sign a resignation letter or to be fired and asked me to sign in the moment, but I refused and asked them I will take the letter and do it later during this week.
They asked you have to do it during this week ( obligatory), could any one recommend me whether this is good direction to sign this letter as it is first time for me and I am not aware of many LEGAL stuff.
PS. For more details why this happened:
I am a first year PhD student, I was working in a new topic, I found a problem in research and then I proposed a methodology and verified it. My PI said from few months ago that it was good what I did verbatim. Then I got two grants from top conferences although I waited a lot of time to do experiment in other lab, and this lab was not happy because I proposed different approach than they use, but I explained what I proposed and how it could solve. Honestly, I worked so much hard as you can imagine, but in the same time I noticed that my PI is underestimating from my ideas sometimes and have sharp looking at me without any reason, at the beginning he didnot want to publish anything or attend conference without any reason, sometimes he didnot listen to me and I made correction for him which was critical for research, but I did in very polite way
He began to catch small mistakes in report for instance which was very trivial and inflate it and never acknowledge the two grants I got and I did other stuff for free like videos for the group and sketching which he was astonished by it.
Until I present my work in the committee which every one told me that they do it to see every thing is okay and every one pass, this committee is my PI, another professor who have never worked in my research topic and asked questions  was very sketchy and the head of the school also not related to my domain they see presentation and report no exams no other things, so just presentation and report. Of course this PI made badmouthing behind me and that what I know later and it was mentioned that I didnot do a good bibliography and he doubt the methodology although I got the same results as the real experiment based on physics approach, but he doubts. I was shocked and I confronted this PI, why you didnot tell me from few months ago when you said it is good, he lied and I told this PI, if you have doubts could you please tell me what are these doubts like 1,2,3 and what you suggested, he didnot say anyword and go. In conclusion, he wasnot specialized in this new topic, even when I am doing any proposed formula he accuse me that I stole it or from where I had come with this equation, I did that on my own, it is quite hurting because he accused me many times of any schematics drawings, sketches formula that may be I stole it, and I tell him that I did that on my own, and BTW I have never ever stole something so that can interpret his actions. In conclusion,  this PI told me your are independent  and he didnot like that and also know that I worked hard but he dont want to continue in this research this is after making badmouthing about me as I am not eligible to continue and even the committee yesterday which the head of the school told me I know you are very good and you did a good work, but no one can speak, the head of school recommended me to find another lab in different country. Sorry for English grammar mistakes and typos.

I think the question is “Should I sign this letter or force them to fire me? What are the differences between my prospects with the two options?”

@ Dawn, thanks for your help, I edited the question with your suggested one, yes exactly that is my question.

I think you're going to need to talk to someone local, who's familiar with your specific university's culture and also your country's employment laws.  Internet people are not really going to be able to help you here - we don't even know what country you're in.  Another relevant question, which you haven't really explained, is why they are demanding that you leave.

I second Nate's comment. Sounds like it's time to bring in a lawyer.

You haven't mentioned the country, so there's not much we can say about the "legal stuff" or the local advantages/disadvantages to resigning or being fired. In any case, this site isn't the best place for legal advice. You might be better served getting a (possibly free) consultation with a lawyer.

Resigning seems better than being fired. Try searching https://www.google.com/search?q=resign+or+fire, the first few results include an article from Monster (who I seem to recall as being credible): https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/resign-or-be-fired

Can you please specify what happened when you quit?

@elliotsvensson  I have edited the question and added why this happened after PS. Sorry for prolong post, but I really need support to come out of this and finding another good lab is not easy. I am try to do my best as much as I can.

What is your exact status in the program?  Perhaps, would it be sufficient to say, "they are not continuing this research and they will not give me other research to do"?

I am a PhD student working on research project, I dont know what they are going to do, I have only one PI.

All I can say when I sent some potential PI, they told me why this happened to you, you did a lot of interesting work and they dont believe why I have been forced to leave.

Even what I proposed and verified is being handled a future work of some papers, I am honest with you that what I happened, but I do think that they didnot read my work and they just underestimate from me because there another professor in the lab I am cooperating with to do test, he told me will never do something and he was very racist.

We have discussed all this situation elsewhere. My impression from other discussions is that you have not read the contract in details. This is the main point of dispute wherever discussing terms about leaving & signing papers. I suggest you carefully read all clauses in the contract and learn about past events with others to understand exactly why they want you to sign some paper; what difference does it make. Usually one part will push for the most advantageous outcome for them (e.g. liberating data ownership or payment obligations). Make sure you see their point.

Here's another idea: in addition to your communications here on StackExchange, get in touch with personnel at other universities directly.  Use your personal email address.  Type the message to everybody on this: ( https://physics.unc.edu/faculty/ ) and this ( https://physics.nd.edu/people/faculty/ ).  Be really nice and not too long; the only thing you are looking for at first is someone to listen to you.  And when you have met them, tell them the details of your situation privately.

Also, go here: ( https://research.fas.harvard.edu/postdoc_opportunities#external )  Start applying for fellowships now; explain your situation and see what they say.

A few things to look for in the paperwork--if you resign versus are fired, does either option require you to repay any scholarship/fellowship or other monies that they've given you? Is there a nondisclosure statement? Or a statement about penalties if you say negative things about the university, department or professors? And so on.

If you can afford to do so, consult a lawyer. That way you will know all of your options, not just the most apparent ones. If you have no option other than to leave, then your decision should rest on whether you want to fight/contest your removal or not. If you don't contest it, then it is probably (subject to legal advice) better to sign the letter. But if you sign it, you are probably giving up options.
But advice like this should come from a lawyer.

In some countries, there is 'accessible lawyer' programs, for those who can't afford it.

Problem is, in some countries the lawyer will speak of truths not applicable to all spheres. Suing in some regions can be awfully slow and expensive and coming from a foreigner on a visa almost guarantees it to fail. That's why international students/postdocs are the most frequent prey for contract holes.

Monika, it's time to hire a real lawyer.  Get a consultation and be willing to pay the $500 or £350 or whatever.  Organizations like universities are held accountable for their hiring and firing practices. Don't sign the resignation until you have had this conversation.  And if the lawyer doesn't explain him- or herself to you so that you are satisfied, showing you the actual text of the relevant laws, then spend more money to get another lawyer.  This is a big deal.

Make paper copies of all your communications starting right now!  Also, do your best to write down exactly what they said to you.

All I can say,  I cannot afford lawyer, and I cannnot reveal which country! All I can say I feel lost completely and the other student who didnot pass his viva after four years in my same group no did something for him although he is the same nationality of the country! It is a clear bullying and every one in the committee acknowledge and they can do nothing, they told me it is better to find another lab in another country. Besides being alone and begin to see the world as monsters and no one support the student rights.

There are monsters in the world, and there are angels in the world, too.

Read the book of Esther.

Lawyers are not so useful in many countries, particularly in the 3rd world and dealing with academic departments. These people may be just quite comfortable in breaking laws which are not enforced (for some). For instance, in China, or many parts of Latin America.


text:
Etiquette on giving negative feedback on a top mathematician's work
I want to ask a more general question that relates to a renowned mathematician’s recent proposed proof of a famous hypothesis, which seems to be widely considered not even close to being correct – that it’s not just not correct, it’s “not even wrong”.
Since now, all the top mathematicians have declined to comment on his proof, seemingly out of respect for the mathematician.
So my general question is: for a well-established mathematician, shouldn’t they be given feedback, even if their work isn’t correct?  Why not give a rejection, so that they are informed?
I would think that a long-time mathematician who has won the top awards in their lifetime can actually handle the criticism – they wouldn’t have become a master at their craft without overcoming a great deal of failures and negativity in their career.  In that sense, it is actually more respectful to tell a researcher when they are wrong.

This post appears to relate to a very specific individual with a unique set of circumstances. As such, I've deleted the comments identifying the individual and am taking the (rather heavy-handed) approach of closing this question. I welcome discussion on [meta] if the group thinks this is inappropriate.

People should, please, distinguish between criticizing the person and critiquing the mathematics. They aren't at all the same thing.

My impression is that there have been previous efforts to give this kind of feedback on previous attempts on other problems, perhaps even this one. Bear in mind that not everything which occurs is documented online and announced on blogs, etc

Why not give a rejection, so that they are informed? Under such circumstances one could expect that the work would indeed be rejected if it were submitted to a journal.  As Yemon says, not everything relevant which occurs will be announced on blogs.

The person we're talking about has his place in mathematics cemented whatever he says or does in the latter days of his career. The mathematicians who have been asked to comment on the latest claim know this and do not feel the need to tarnish his reputation by commenting publicly on it. Those who know him well may choose to tell him in private what they think, which he may or may not accept.
At its core, this is a very private story about aging and all of its associated effects. It is magnified by the fact that the person in question is a giant in his field and the public nature that comes along with everything he says. But I'm sure all of us with aging parents/friends/loved ones can relate to the fact that there are no easy ways to deal with this; dealing with it in public does not seem the right approach to me.

I strongly agree with this answer, and want to add that the only people who I personally think less of is the committee that somehow decided it would be appropriate to invite him to present the “proof” at such a public venue.

@StellaBiderman -- indeed.

Don't. That would be a one-word answer (somewhat ironic).  But to generalize the question, be very careful of giving negative feedback to anyone, ever (whether a mathematician or otherwise). Most people just don't like it.  If it is imperative, try to show factual things that are actually wrong, and why (I once showed a Computer Science professor that the steps in his program were needed to run backwards, which when he understood, he appreciated).  If you do give the negative feedback, be sure to maintain politeness and courtesy at all times.

Indeed.  There are two main good reasons to give negative feedback: to help someone improve, and to prevent bad work getting accepted by the mathematical community.  The former is appropriate when one’s in a mentorial or close collaborative role, when refereeing/editing submissions, and generally not otherwise.  The latter is appropriate when bad work is otherwise liable to get accepted with its errors overlooked.  Neither of these applies in the present example (except for close friends/colleagues of the mathematician in question, but they already know the full situation better).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
PhD thesis defense - is there a separate defense session with one's graduate committee?
I was watching a math PhD thesis defense on YouTube and it seems that after about an hour of the talk, a committee member tells the audience to leave except for the graduate committee and the PhD candidate.
What typically happens next?  Is there a separate defense session with the graduate committee?
For reference: United States

Surely there are better things to watch on YouTube...

Voting to close, as this is entirely dependent on the individual institution's policies. Ask your advisor -- it's literally their job to give you this kind of advice.

@Kimball And surely there are much, much worse.

That varies from place to place, even in the US. Your advisor will give you the best advice. But yes, a private session with your committee is pretty common. They want to assure themselves that you are "seasoned" and have both the required depth and breadth to be awarded the degree.
Again, your advisor will tell you what to expect, but it is possible to get questions that are unrelated to your thesis, or even to your specific subfield. In mathematics, members of a committee often have different specialties and may want to know what you can say about their own field as they may have only a sketchy knowledge of yours and of your thesis.
Don't, in general, expect it to be just a presentation. The public part needs to be a bit less technical in tone, since many of those present are looking for an overview. That isn't enough, of course. You need to say what you did and the key ideas that got you there.

This. The only thing I want to add is that rules can be arbitrarily crazy. During my defence, everyone was allowed to attend the first half (20 minutes presentation + 20 minutes questions), but the only ones allowed to ask questions were the members of the committee, professors from the same department and deans from the other departments.

@Sabine, Some departments require outside-of-field committee members such as a sociologist on a mathematics committee. Such people have been known (at least in the mythology) to have caused a candidate to fail.

what I said - rules can be arbitrarily crazy :) (guess I'm lucky I got my PhD from a university with only engineers on an engineering committee)

Each experience is different. In my experience, the entire defense was public. The committee asked questions throughout the presentation, then more at the end if they had any others. There was also a fair bit of discussion and asking my thoughts on potential research directions. After this, they offered anyone in the audience the opportunity to ask questions. After everyone was satisfied, then they asked people to step out (including me) to briefly step out. When they opened the doors they announced results.
Each committee chair may do this differently but my experience was as follows:

Ask everyone (including candidate) not on committee to step out briefly. Doors close.
Candidate and audience brought back in.
Defense presentation (questions during).
Questions after by committee.
Questions from audience (if time permits).
Everyone not on committee (including candidate) step out. Doors close.
Doors open. Result announced.

Bizarre. Why didn't the committee just not let people into the room until they'd done whatever they did between steps 1 and 2?

@DavidRicherby, usually the candidate has arrived early to setup and make sure tech works. Friends, other students, etc often arrive before the committee.  Tenured faculty don't exactly have a reputation for being ultra-punctual at my institution.  I jest, but I think its just because people are already in the room.

I will answer in the context of my PhD defense and the defenses of my students, who are in various versions of public health.
There is a separate session with the graduate committee. This can last a long time, or it can be fairly brief, and in my experience, there's not a strong correlation with length of time and success.
In that session, somewhat harder questions, ambiguous questions, etc. can be asked. What would you do in X circumstance. Push the conclusions of your study a little farther. On occasion, and I dislike it when this happens, there's objections from one or more faculty members about core issues in the thesis. It's far less structured than a presentation, and is, while not hostile, definitely critical. I got asked several questions with the intent to stump me, including one that was intended as a lesson for the future.

What lesson did you learn for the future?

@JosephDoggie If you casually assert something, expect someone to ask a question about it.

Oh ok, it took me a while to unwind who 'you' was ... LOL

In the U.S. (1993), the committee meets in private, to 'vote'.  I passed.  At my University, one wasn't allowed a second-chance, which sounds like a difficult rule, but it was intended to protect students from 'you must do this to pass, that, and the other thing'.  By the time you go to the defense, your thesis should have been read by your advisor and one or two more members of the committee.

This sounds very much like the practice in my country of Austria. The defense is public, i.e. colleagues and friends of the defendant can watch.
After the defense, the committee will ask everyone, including the defendant to leave, during this time, the committee will work out the grade. After they reached a conclusion, they ask to defendant in, again, to tell him/her the grade of the defense.
Since, the debate of the members of the committee regarding the grade is a private affair, all people have to leave the room.

The question is about the US. Procedures vary dramatically from country to country and, if we have answers about every different country, the actual answers will be impossible to find.

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


text:
Statement of Purpose, should one say "I did X ..." or "My advisor and I did X .. "?
In a statement of purpose for PhD applications, should one talk about their undergrad research like

I did X ...

or, should one (rightfully) say

My advisor and I / we did X ...

Would admissions committees be concerned that the applicant "lacks confidence", when they talk about their research work and emphasize that it's work between them and their advisor?  Would committees rather hear the applicant talking solely about their own work?
(Option no. 1 seems a bit ... wrong.)

You should write whatever is true.

If you want, you can just write "We" without specifying whether it's only you or you and your advisor (usually in scientific papers, even single authors use "We" so nobody would consider this suspicious)

This is an XY problem. Saying "I did X" repeatedly is wrong and offputting, and saying "My advisor and I did X" repeatedly sounds weak and annoying to read. Neither is the right option alone.
You should adjust the phrasing so that subjects are simple, mostly either "I" or "we", and explicitly credit yourself for things you actually did on their own. After all, you did have some independence, right? It's not like your advisor was over your shoulder every minute of every day.
Bad example:

My advisor and I were looking for a project in field X. My advisor gave me a project to apply X to Y, and my advisor and I planned the general strategy after my advisor taught me the basics, so that after two months, some progress was made, though my advisor decided that the data analysis would have to be redone. Later, a paper was drafted with the editorial support of my advisor, which is now, after having been submitted, under review, at Journal Y.

Better example:

I wanted research experience in field X and approached Prof P, who agreed to be my advisor. My project was to apply X to Y, and after a brief reading period I began two months of independent work, during which I picked up techniques A, B, and C. However, I found these techniques were not powerful enough for the problem at hand. We decided on a change of strategy, and I modified the analysis with techniques D and E, which I used to produce compelling results. We have written up and submitted these results to Journal Y.

Of course you would use fancier language in the real thing, but note how the second example makes you sound like an actual sentient human being, while the first makes you sound like you were just passively "along for the ride", even though it technically makes the exact same claims.

This answer is very good, with (imo) one exception. I would avoid "my advisor directed me to" like the plague - if you have to write something like this, I would phrase it as "we decided" in this case.

@xLeitix You’re right, edited!

I was taught that it should be “This was planned” and not “I / we planned this” or
“XXX was built or carried out” and not “ I built this” or
“analysis of the results show..” not “my or our analysis shows...”

I was taught to avoid this. Nobody likes reading typical stale scientific writing with every sentence in passive voice. Saying “the experiment was planned” conveys next to no information.

The discrepancy between the comment and the answer comes from 2 semi-conflicting rules of writing: 1) it is a general rule of writing to avoid the passive voice.  2) in certain academic contexts, one should not write in the first person.  But for a statement of purpose, there's no reason to follow rule 2).

So how are books written and why are they written like that? Is it for clarity and to avoid ambiguity?


text:
Does anyone in Academia.SE know about Saudi universities?
I did a masters 8 years ago. am 38, unemployed, and don't have any fund.
I want to go to the USA for a PhD. But, probably won't get a visa for having a study gap and/or being unemployed and old (on most occasions refusal letter would reply "You haven't satisfied us that you would leave the country after the designated period of your study!"). So, I am planning to get a PhD in Saudi university so that I can later go for a PostDoc in the USA.
QS ranking:

Looks like Saudi Arabia has a number of world-class universities. I heard they also pay scary amount of money to PhD students.
I heard that admission committees in US universities often find hard times evaluating weight of degrees from unfamiliar universities while selecting potential research students, and instructors.
How familiar are Saudi universities in the USA in the field of CS? Are they good enough to support my goal?
Note. The rationale behind going to Saudi Arabia is, it has a very good relationship with the USA. I can save some money, and then get visa by showing that fund.
Note.2. some users asked in the comment section why I am considering KSA why not Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. Well, as far as I researched, universities in SEA has issues in their learning cultures. As far as I understand, they prefer memorization based learning. I also heard that a large number of students in Taiwan, Japan, and so on commit suicides because of study pressures.

Taiwan: Pros and Cons from a Master’s Degree Student
5 Challenges You Will Face Studying Abroad in Japan
Singapore schools: 'The best education system in the world' putting significant stress on young children

First, let me answer about the reputation/ranking of Saudi universities:
I should warn you that Saudi Arabian universities have a reputation for "gaming" these rankings you are relying on.
What they do is pay researchers at western universities to accept a second affiliation there. This allows the Saudi university to list them as faculty and claim credit for their publications and citations and thereby boost their ranking. In reality, these researchers are rarely if ever present and do not contribute to the academic environment there. Perhaps they visit for a week and give a few talks, but they do not supervise students or teach courses there.
For more details, see this question and the links in it: What should you do if a co-author has an unethical affiliation?
The answers to this question also show how people in the west react to this.
So the reality is that Saudi universities have a very questionable reputation in the west, despite their good performance in international rankings.
Note that I'm not saying these are bad universities, but simply that you should be wary of the rankings and the claimed faculty. Every university seeks to maximize it's reputation, but Saudi Arabian universities have a reputation for going overboard with this.

Now the second part of your question -- how does going to a Saudi university play into your academic career goals given that you want to end up in the US:
Generally speaking, moving to the US after PhD is much harder than before. This is my personal impression and is supported by data.
The main reason is that, after your PhD, you are evaluated on your research and your recommendation letter writers and connections matter a lot. Thus you want to have research exposure in the US and you want to have connections in the US and letters from US professors. The easiest way to do that is to be in the US.
Before your PhD this doesn't matter so much, as you are evaluated on your potential.
Another reason is that, as you move up the career ladder, positions get more and more competitive. This makes everything, including moving countries, harder.
Of course, countries like Canada and Israel are very close to the US in terms of research connections. So doing a PhD there will be almost as good as doing one in the US.
If you are having trouble getting into a PhD program that you want, then doing a Masters is probably a good idea, especially if you get a good recommendation letter out of it. It isn't critical where you do a Masters.

Another point, very relevant to postdoc applications in the U.S., is that you'd almost surely not have those international big-shots writing you letters of recommendation. For post-PhD applications, the reputation of the university is "something", but it's really about who writes your letters. Bang.

I think it would be helpful in your answer to distinguish between KAUST and other Saudi universities. It is well known and verifiable that KAUST does not engage in any of the practices you describe.

I am from Saudi Arabia. I also remember there is a KAUST (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology) faculty here as well.
First, do your best to go to KAUST. You can be accepted in elite US institutes and yet be rejected from KAUST. It is a serious grad-only institute. So go for it if you can. It is much better for you in both money and research output.
Second, The bribing thing for ranking isn’t as accurate as it seems to be. While definitely one institute had serious issues in this regard, large number of Saudi universities didn’t go that way. Actually, and I have seen this in STEM fields, nowadays some grad students have co-supervisors overseas from a reputable institute. I also don’t think Saudi universities provide good stipends for their grad students. My suggestion is to go for a good (usually young) supervisor who published in top venues in your field (for example, if you’re into AI look for faculties who published in ICML/AAAI/AAMAS/IJCAI/CP). There are a few of them. Contact them in advance and see if they can supervise you. My ranking for the universities in the picture in CS is:  KAUST - KFUPM - KSU - KAU. I know a couple of profs in Canada and they’ve done their PhD in KFUPM.
My own suggestion: Saudi universities are not set up for grad school. The system is so old and needs dramatic change. Look for a better environment.

First: if you want a postdoc position in the US, what will matter are your qualifications, not your bank account.
I am faculty at KAUST, and I was born and studied in the US.  KAUST does not game the rankings in the ways described in the answer by @Thomas (though he's correct that other Saudi universities have done this).
I don't put too much stock in bibliometric measures, but KAUST is currently ranked #1 in the world in citations per faculty (to see this, go to that page and click 'rankings indicators' and then 'citations per faculty').  None of those citations are due to any kind of fake affiliations; they are KAUST researchers who live and work at KAUST.
KAUST faculty come from the world's top institutions and we send many of our graduates on to postdoctoral positions at top universities in the USA, like Princeton, Caltech, MIT, etc.  Of course, many of them also go to industry and to other countries.
We are a very small and highly selective institution; we only run graduate programs and we have less than 1000 students, but again I think that choosing a graduate program based primarily on financial incentives is a mistake.  It's true that all our admitted students are on generous scholarships.  You need outstanding qualifications to get in, and admission is even less likely if (as it appears) your main goal is to save money.
Edit: I don't think my answer should be the accepted answer to this question, since I've only dealt with one very small institution.

admission is even less likely if your goal is to save money. --- what do you mean?

And, what do you mean by outstanding qualification?

I mean that if your main criterion in choosing a program is money, then KAUST is not a good fit for you.  We look for more or less the same kinds of qualifications that will get you into top graduate programs elsewhere.

I don't think my answer should be the accepted answer to this question, since I've only dealt with one very small institution. --- it means, you want all to know that KSA's universities are bad. But, the one you are employed in is good.


text:
How to professionally inform of my intention to quit my masters
After long thought, I have decided to quit my master's program.
I fully understand the shame and failure that this is.
What is the professional way to leave, I do not wish to waste anyone's time but I feel just ducking out with an email would look bad.
Should I simply arrange a meeting with my thesis advisor and let them know then, and should I indicate my desire to quit within the email I send?
I know whatever happens, I will be viewed as a failure by them and will never get a reference from them.

Could you please explain your advisor's role? Are they simply supervising your dissertation? Or do they have a more involved role?

They are my thesis advisor and who I do most of my work with

First, there shouldn't be any shame involved. For some reason you have learned that what you are now doing isn't right for you. That is perfectly natural, even if you are struggling at the moment. But before you decide finally, make sure it is the right decision.
As to how to do it, a face to face meeting is the best way. But before you have the meeting, think about what your future plans are so that you can talk about them as well as about quitting. If you think you may want to return later, you can work that in. The academic life isn't for everyone, and it may be a good thing if that is the case for you and you learn it now.
Your advisor may even have options available that you haven't thought of, but face to face is best. If you want to give him/her a heads-up on your intentions, send an email asking for a meeting to discuss your future.

You don't say why you are considering quitting, and you need not. However, there are at least three common reasons. First, is just external pressures that need to be dealt with. Second is burn-out that is pretty common also, and can lead to health issues. That can be overcome in some cases with help.
But the third reason is one to consider. There is a condition called Imposter Syndrome that affects many students at a certain point. It is the deep feeling that you don't belong because you "aren't good enough." That is often a bit related to burn-out but it is also pretty often completely unjustified. One of the reasons for speaking to your advisor in person is that he/she might just reassure you that you are, in fact, good enough. I suggest that you investigate Imposter Syndrome online as a start if you think this resonates.

The reasons are a bit of 2 and 3, I have read about imposter syndrome and while I do have low confidence about my life, I do realize that the syndrome does apply if I look at things objectively. However, I also do have the self-awareness to know I am not exceptional and that some of my feelings of inferiority are legitimate and not just that syndrome.

@ArmadilloDisco, in fact, hard work is worth a lot more than "exceptional." It will carry you farther.

Something similar happened to me about 30 years ago in the UK. I would suggest setting up a face-to-face meeting with your supervisor. When I did this, email wasn't much of a thing: I think I just caught her in the corridor and asked something like "Can we meet to discuss my research project?".
I graduated with a good BSc. in Microcomputer and Electronic Engineering and went on to become a Research Student1 at the same institution working towards an MSc. and then a PhD. The work started well – interesting, challenging-but-achievable – but after a while it was becoming clear that the work was heading in a direction that I was not as interested in, nor as capable at. After about a year – after a certain amount of anguish – I realised that things were unlikely to work out – at least in their current form – and plucked up the courage to confront my supervisor.
Yes, I must have had some feelings of shame and failure, but I had also convinced myself that it was in neither of our interests (me or the department) to continue for another two or three years not really making progress and with little or nothing to show at the end of it.
Obviously there was some disappointment on my supervisor's part that I felt unable to continue (both for me, and for the department), but there was never any animosity. Like me, I think she was glad that I brought it up sooner rather than later (didn't waste as much of her or the department's time, potentially allowed the funding behind my work to be used for someone else).
And far from "never get[ting] a reference from them" we discussed what I was interested in, and I was offered (and took) the chance to become a Research Assistant2 on a new three-year project (later extended to four years) that was due to start shortly. The only "concession" they asked was that I "went through the motions" of submitting for an MSc. (knowing I wouldn't get one) as this helped the "box ticking"...

1 In the UK at the time you were first a normal (undergraduate) student studying for a first degree (BA/BSc). Then some would become a Research Student (usually funded) with the primary purpose to get either a Masters (MA/MSc) and/or a doctorate (PhD).
2 A Research Assistant positions was effectively an employee of the university, working on a specific research project. The primary goal was doing the research (which often tended to be more about the application of ideas), but opportunities for higher degrees were still present.

Quitting is neither shameful nor a failure. On the contrary, it is respectable and a success. You've established that continuing is not appropriate and you've taken action to find an appropriate direction.

What is the professional way to leave

The university should define a withdrawal procedure which you must follow. In addition, you may contact your thesis advisor. It is acceptable to merely send them an email, but you might want to arrange a meeting (which is what I'd recommend). Whether you indicate your intent to quit in an email beforehand depends what you want. If your decision is absolutely final, then the email could make it clear to your advisor that you are quitting, rather than merely contemplating quitting. This is a useful distinction, because your advisor may try to help you make a decision if they think a final decision hasn't been reached.

I will be viewed as a failure by them and will never get a reference from them.

A good supervisor would never take such a view nor would they refuse to provide a reference. (They might -- if they believe it is in your best interests -- discuss the possibility of staying.)


text:
Suggestions for official PhD/department visit (not interview)?
I realize this question may not have an explicit answer - if so I will remove promptly as per guidelines.
I have an upcoming visit to my top-choice program where I will be meeting potential committee members and the grad program director. I am very nervous.
Details about the visit itself:

morning breakfast with committee member
lunch with other grad students
several meetings with different professors/grad program director
last meeting is with primary supervisor

Suggestions can be more structured around the following considerations:

how can I stop freaking out
do i need to sell myself 100% of the time, or try to be more amicable

This isn't an official interview (app isn't due for a couple months) but I've been talking with several profs in the department for a while.

Is this leading to grad study or a faculty position (or postdoc)?

Also, if it is for grad study, is it a lab science where you would work directly with the other grad students?

This is for a new PhD position. It is for a lab-based group where I would be entering a shared work space for the grad students of 2 professors.

This is bad advice because I know how unhelpful it is... but you really do just have to be yourself and learn what calming techniques work for you.

First, you are probably new at this so freaking out is pretty natural. If you'd done it ten or so times, it would feel pretty natural. Actually, a bit of physical exercise can help you calm your mind. Coffee, not so much.
But, more seriously, I think you need to be pretty natural. You will be a colleague and people will want to be able to work with you and so, to be comfortable with you. It needn't be all technical either. "Anyone here play handball?"
But you also need to demonstrate that you are suited for the environment. People will look to you for ideas, of course, so you need to be able to answer questions both about yourself and about the field/research that is going on.
But, it is also wise not to come on too strong in the beginning. People have their ways of doing things. If you are "too helpful" you may be hurting yourself as in "Who is this guy?". So save any suggestions you might have for "improvement" in the lab for a later time.
I once made the mistake of giving too much advice in a new employment situation and it was resented, as I learned later. Whether it was the right advice or not wasn't important.
Probably the best thing you can do is express a lot of interest in what is going on. But each meeting will be a bit different. If "selling" is needed it will be more likely useful with the supervisor. Be positive in all things. "How do you see yourself fitting in with these people?"
You might also be prepared for surprises. Can you give an impromptu talk on your prior research?

Thanks @Buffy - these are great tips! Good suggestion about the surprises too! Will be positive and look forward to such an event! I also found this thread quite helpful: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17192/what-are-the-right-questions-to-ask-professors-at-a-visit-day-for-prospective

SELLING (last bullet):
In converse to a job (where this really would be an interview), this is mostly about you learning and I doubt they will file reports and have a decision meeting (as they would for a formal job interview visit).  Most of the decision will be based on your application.  Of course, it would be good to avoid looking bad and to look good (to benefit yourself), realize that most of the decision will be done based on your written application.
Just come across as pleasant and interested in the topics.  Treat it like a date.  Get the people to talk about themselves.
FREAKING (second to last bullet):
Enjoy yourself.  Don't be completely loosey goosey.  But at the same time, realize this is a learning opportunity regardless if you get the gig or not, regardless if you decide to go to the school.  The most fun part of the learning curve is the steepest part and that is when you are most ignorant.  Any day one onsite visit (job interview, job start, consulting study) has the benefit of a rush of new info.  Realize that and enjoy that you are collecting intel and learning.
Have some idea what you want to know (make a written list).  But also be open to learning new unexpected things good and bad.  E.g. "mugging is overemphasized at University of Chicago--it only happened to me once." was a statement that dropped the place for me and I wasn't even aware of the neighborhood issue prior.  So any "plant tour" should BOTH involve planning and answering pre-set questions AND be open to new findings where you didn't even know the question to ask.
P.s.  I am aware that the OP has already succeeded (and maybe was a bit of a superstar but who worried too much) but am responding to all the other people that read from searches.


text:
How important is it for a professor to direct a thesis?
How important is it for a professor to direct a thesis?
I mean, what can the professor get from it? I know it will help for his/her curriculum, but is it too much?
Is the merit equivalent to the publication of an article?
or is it not so important?
or is it more important than the publication of any article?
I am just curious about it.
Thank you.

The answer to your question is very much dependent on field, the type of university where the prof works and the carrier stage of the professor. Do you want to narrow some of these?

Some of the other answers here disturb me. It is as if the academic life is nothing more than building up a big pile of personal chits and deviously inducing others (students) to add more chits to your pile. I reject that view and have never witnessed it in a career that began in the 1970s.
As a professor, I was mostly concerned with finding truth in a narrow area. Any publications were a means to spread the knowledge that I learned along with colleagues.
For most of my career I wasn't involved in doctoral education. But in the final decade or so I had a few doctoral students. They are my academic children and will, I hope, carry on that search for truth that I participated in.
My own teachers, including my dissertation advisor, were, in my view, giants, who helped me grow and become myself. They got nothing out of it but the knowledge that I learned and appreciated their efforts. I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to go back and personally thank one of my mentors before he died. He noted that such things happen too seldom.
In mathematics we have something called the Mathematics Genealogy Project through which PhDs can trace their mathematical ancestry. We are proud to be the intellectual children of our advisors and we are equally proud to be the intellectual parents of our students.
It is actually the fulfillment of the profession. No chits needed. Thank you, anyway.

true, but the question included the undergraduate tag, so I assumed it referred primarily to Bachelor's and Master's thesis rather than a PhD thesis. These are often rewarding to, as I mentioned in my answer. However, these are less my "academic children", if only because they are done so much quicker than a PhD thesis, so I spent much less time with them and most of them won't continue in academia.

Advising a bachelor or master's thesis is just part of my teaching obligation. Most of the time it is an enjoyable obligation: now I get to accompany someone on their first steps in doing independent research. However, that is pretty much all I get out of it. Advising a PhD thesis is a bit more prestigious, but the added value drops quickly. However, with a PhD project the advisor may get one or two co-authored papers out of it, and in some disciplines the PhD students are an important source of cheap labor.

I spoke to a professor who got a deal at his new institution to not have to teach for the first year. At first she thought this was great, but in the end she regretted it because it delayed the influx of new PhD students as well. So in that sense advising bachelor and master theses also has some indirect benefits.

@Keelan good point. Though in my institution we typically start recruiting way before the bachelor or master's thesis. What happens is the early big lectures of the first year, we select the most promising students for tutor and assistant jobs. It is from this pool that we do most of the recruiting. So the person teaching the early big lectures tends to be in the best position to spot the promising students (though it will take a couple of years before they become available)

In some fields, directing a Ph.D. student means you get cheap labor for your lab.  But in non-lab subjects, I tend to agree with Maarten.  Directing a Ph.D. may enhance your reputation.  Within your department it may be taken into account for raises or promotions.  Outside your department, you benefit if it becomes known that your former Ph.D.s go on to big things.

in this case it's for Bachelor's thesis not Ph.D.


text:
Israel and the Bologna Process
I am just curious. Israel is not a part of Bologna Process.
So, I have two questions:

Why was Israel rejected a membership in Bologna process?
How is an Israeli PhD evaluated in Bologna member countries?

With a few exceptions (like Germany), a doctoral degree isn't protected by law and there are no standards to evaluate what is a PhD and what isn't. If you were awarded a PhD then you have one. As far as I know some Israeli institutions have international renown some don't. The same thing can be said about any country. In my experience what maters is: what you achieved as a PhD student > your group's reputation within the field > your institution's prestige > everything else.

@CapeCode You're responding to someone who quoted the Bologna process, whose purpose is precisely to homogenize degrees such as "bachelor", "master" and... "doctor". Your "few exceptions" is basically Europe.

For context, most other countries around the world (including, for example, the US, Canada, Japan and Australia) are also not members of the Bologna Process. Can you explain why your question 2 (and your title question) don’t apply equally to those countries?

At least the top 3-4 institutions are generally regarded on par of strong European/US institutions. Funding is less, but the PhD quality is generally quite high. The Bologna process has actually eroded some of strong points of continental education (e.g. in Germany the "Humboldt"-ideal), so not being included is not necessarily indicating a weak point.

Why was Israel rejected a membership in Bologna process?

My understanding is that it's a formal matter:

Israel's initial application to the Bologna process was submitted in January 2007. The application's re-submission in 2008 was rejected. The rejection appears to rest on formal-political grounds: non-European states cannot sign the Bologna Declaration and join the process; they may only observe the process and its implementation

The rejection was likely based on the 2003 Berlin communiqué, which states that a country needs to be a signatory of the European Cultural Convention to be eligible to join in the Bologna process:

Countries party to the European Cultural Convention shall be eligible for membership
of the European Higher Education Area provided that they at the same time declare
their willingness to pursue and implement the objectives of the Bologna Process in their
own systems of higher education.

This means that it's mostly members of the Council of Europe (not to be confused with the European Union) that have joined the Higher Education Area. There is a short list of exceptions, but Israel is not one of them.

How is an Israeli PhD evaluated in Bologna member countries?

That's a rather broad question... I'd say that an Israeli PhD would usually be viewed quite favorably, when awarded by a university of international repute. However, exactly how a foreign degree will be treated is going to depend on the Bologna member country in question, and the specific degree (e.g. medical degrees tend to be highly regulated). Usually it's down to the specific university/employer to evaluate your degree. Notably, Germany is rather strict when it comes to recognition of foreign degrees, but according to aeismail's answer here, Israeli PhDs are recognized as fully equivalent to "Dr." in Germany.

So, how come Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are members of the Bologna Process?

@user366312 Azerbaijan is a member state of Council of Europe. Kazakhstan is one of the exceptions alluded to in the answer, in that it is a signatory of the European Cultural Convention without being a member of Council of Europe.

so, why can't Israel become a signatory of any one of these forums? this is, I think, the main question. Israel's (or Japan's) geographical location is not the issue here.

@user366312 Well, then you're getting into the political and diplomatic weeds of it, which are somewhat murky. I think Israel would be welcomed by prior signatories. My understanding is also that Israeli officials were seriously contemplating  joining, but eventually decided against it. Supposedly this was in part due to pressure from USA, and in part because of uncertainty as to whether it the declaration's recognition of rights of indigenous people could apply to Palestinians in Israel and what consequences that might have.


text:
Does a PhD student need to focus more on working in theory, in order to have a real chance of becoming a professor?
I have a friend who's doing a STEM PhD at one of the top programs - think e.g. Harvard / Princeton / MIT - and they are getting ready to drop out after the faculty there have told them that they don't have a real chance at academia since their published papers have been "too applied", and that strong work in theory was crucial.  (They're trying to see whether the papers can somehow form a thesis, but they have mentally checked out and are looking forward to having a nice payday in industry.)
I wanted to know whether that is sort of the norm in STEM academia, that to have a real chance at becoming a professor, one should stay away from work that's "too applied", during their PhD years, and try to work on theory.
Is this generally true?

What part of STEM? This is clearly true in some parts, clearly false in others.

The opposite of applied is pure, not theoretical. Details depend on field, but it is generally true that academia favors academic research, and not industrial research.

As I have observed in the biological sciences, academics are interested in what the system/organism/protein actually does and how that aligns with your model. If you propose a protein folding mechanism, an academic will ask you to name a family of proteins that folds into such a state you propose. If you claim that you can simulate the fluidity of a cellular membrane, someone will probably ask you to prove that by experiment in the lab. So in the biological sciences, I would say that applied research has the potential to be convincing and you use theory and model systems to make proposals.

I agree with Buffy's answer, but also want to expand on what knzhou alludes to in a comment: STEM has many sub-fields, some of which are more theoretical or applied than others. As it turns out, the walls separating these different fields are far from impermeable. Perhaps your friend's PhD really is too applied for his current department, making a tenure case difficult in that field? Perhaps their research would be a more natural fit for another department, or a national laboratory? For example, there are plenty of people with physics PhDs that have ended up as tenured professors in various engineering departments.
Now, if the research best fits departments with the current name, then your friend might just have to go down the status ladder a little bit to have a realistic chance of tenure. For example, an expert in a field-specific numerical method can be seen as too much of a one-trick pony for the absolute top institutions.
The bottom line is this: if your friend enjoys their research there are a lot of possibilities to explore before giving up on it completely. They really should talk to their mentor(s) to get personal career advice.

At the level of the institutions you name it may be at least partly true. Theory is valued and research is pretty much all. But there are a lot of other institutions, not quite so high in the stratosphere, for which it would be much less true. If you go down "closer to earth" a bit there are a lot of fine institutions for which research is a bit less important and teaching is very important. It is a big world with a lot of variables.
Of course your friend has to complete the doctorate and for that needs a valid thesis.
But the only way to know if you can get an academic job is to apply for one (or preferably more). Only the hiring committee will get to decide whether a person is "theoretical enough."

The answer is complex, because the job market values both theory and application and generally speaking, you should be as strong as possible in both. Focusing too little or too much on one component is a headache and perhaps not the best approach. Consultation of your adviser and committee, attending job talks to assess how much job candidates talked about theory vs. application, and asking specific universities their stance is your best option to finding the answer you are looking for. Most will likely tell you that they want a balance, rather than one or the other because both are necessary within STEM fields.
Finding the balance between theory and application/praxis is very dependent upon the discipline. I have colleagues that have been told they are "too theoretical" and others who need to grow in application so that their "theory meets praxis." In either scenario, it is highly contingent upon the discipline as well as specific research skills and interests. Also, your thesis talk and job talk are very different and figuring out the extent to which theory and application should be deployed is a discussion that those within your department should be able to answer honestly; this means that the extent to which theory and application "matters" could be very different in your PhD years that you are inquiring about and when it's time to hit the job market.


text:
How to list co-first authors and co-second authors?
I am aware that, on a CV, when listing publications that have co-authors, they are usually denoted using "*" symbol, but what if there are two sets of co-authors? For instance, there 3 co-first authors and 3 co-second authors. In that case, which symbol do I apply to first co authors and which symbol for the 2nd co-authors?
I don't have space to write this out in worse, I can only list it, so I want a clean way to do this.

What's a co-first author and a co-second author? (Similarly, what are co-first and co-second authors?) How are they distinguished from co-authors?

As far as I know, there are "shared first authorships" and "shared last authorships" in medicine. Crazy enough. They are usually marked by symbols (no special ones, these are just explained below the affiliation section of the paper). The same is done for "shared corresponding authorships" that seem to pop up in all kind of research fields. That "shared second authorships" are a thing now seems even more crazy to me. But okay, if so, you should just use any kind of symbol and explain it.

@user2768 In fields where authors are ordered by contribution, first authorship can be a big deal. As a consequence the second author is often assumed to have contributed (significantly) less, whether that holds true or not. A way around that is adding a note saying "these authors contributed equally", such that the first two authors are recognized as co-first. Co-second (and so on) is just the generalization to the next set of authors. They're all co-authors, as that term is more inclusive, and doesn't say anything about contribution level.

Like @FuzzyLeapFrog writes in a comment, you could use any symbol in your CV as long as you explain it, e.g. in a footnote. There is no clear standard as far as I know. Personally I'd use a parenthetical remark to point out that I'm a co-first author, but you say there's no space. In that case, I'd just use whatever symbols are commonly used in papers to denote affiliations or co-authorship in your field. Often this means typographical symbols called daggers that are used to denote footnotes after the asterisk has been used. The order tends to be

Asterisk: *
Dagger (or obelisk): †
Double dagger (or diesis): ‡

In case you really want to go overboard with it, Wikipedia has a few suggestions for a fourth symbol, but there is no real convention for what the fourth symbol should be. Also note that the dagger symbol is sometimes used to indicate that the author passed away, so you may need to take some care with that in some contexts.

https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1151710 this is a good example of the suggested method.


text:
Tests: at the beginning or the end of class?
I'm teaching a 1st year math course. I have to give a one-hour test about the content of the past three weeks during one of my two-hours sessions.
Usually I give such tests at the end (i.e. during the second hour), as I don't want the test to be disturbed by the invariably late students, and I think the students will only be thinking and talking among themselves about the test during the second hour. But now I'm also thinking that if I do this, then students will have their brains already a bit "fried" by the first hour of lecture/exercises, and will have trouble focusing during the second hour on a test that is about what they learned the previous weeks. Besides, my session is from 11h15 to 13h15, so I expect everyone to be hungry during the second hour.
In either case it's not really optimal... but there isn't much choice. What are the other pros and cons?

Is there any way you could devote the entire session to the exam? Like Buffy said, students will find it hard to concentrate on your lecture before an exam, and imo, after the exam will be even more difficult, as the students minds are in post-exam mode.

As a student I would not pay attention to to the first hour of the class at all if there was an exam during the second hour. I'd spend the whole time doing last minute studying

For all the reasons you give, the first hour is much better. Just make sure that they are told beforehand (previous day) there won't be an adjustment made for late comers. They will likely be coming to class "psyched" for the exam. The intervening lecture will get in the way of that. The material discussed might even, being the most recent, be what sticks in their heads during the exam, rather than the material tested. They will also be more likely to ignore or forget the material in the lecture. But you say something similar yourself.
But why do you have to give a one hour test every three weeks. Is that a rule imposed on you? Suppose you start each class with a 15 minute quiz that covers recent material (not just the previous day). Would that be acceptable? It makes each exam less consequential overall and gives you better up to date information about what they have learned. If you end the previous session with a five minute review, perhaps led by the students themselves, on what are the "big ideas" today, and then base the quiz on those ideas (primarily), you may turn out to be more effective.

Yes, it is a rule imposed on me. We are talking about a class that is given to a dozen groups of students by a dozen instructors (~400 students in total). University-wide regulations impose three tests before the final exam. Schedules and rooms are packed to the brim, so it's impossible to organize a test during the workweek. This leaves the weekend. The midterm is during the weekend (and final exams have a dedicated week), but this means that we must organize for 400 students to come in, book rooms, make instructors come in to watch the exams... on a Saturday. This leaves one viable solution.

And since some homogeneity is needed (otherwise we are looking at a lawsuit for breach of equality), the compromise was two one-hour tests after 3 and 9 weeks, and a midterm after 6 weeks, in addition to the final exam after 12 weeks.

@NajibIdrissi, I guess revolt isn't especially viable. But there are better ways to teach as I'm sure you realize. But before the lecture is clearly better. As are shorter, more frequent exams.

That's what I did in the end, test at the beginning of class. I was pleasantly surprised to see that after a short break they were ready to work on new topics.

@NajibIdrissi, yes, the short break is a good thing.


text:
Toxic former PI trying to block me from presenting work after I quit my PhD
I was a PhD student and forced to quit as my PI doubted the new work I did and this PI did not mention any constructive feedback or comments. I signed a resignation letter. Then, I submitted my work to a conference and it was accepted to be published, despite the fact that the supervisor did not help me at all in any step of this proposed methodology that I proved.
The PI found out that I am going to present my work and threatened that (s)he is going to block me from the research field unless I put their name on my work, even though I resigned and they doubt the work. It is clear that (s)he is very appreciated in the field and no lab could accept me if (s)he blocks me. (S)he suggested that it does not help me to present my work alone.
Another question is from where does one get the money to attend a conference without the support of a supervisor. I am really shattered and see this as clear bullying and retaliation. By the way, this PI has forced another student who also did great work and published in top tier conferences and journals to leave after four years of hard work.
I don't know what to do. I did this work on my own, and he has no right to be a co-author.

How is he going to block you? I don't understand the mechanism for that.

As with all your other questions about your supervisor / situation / phd, you should go and see the Dean of Students or equivalent - we can’t give you a definitive answer.

@Buffy It was clear messages that s(he) is very appreciated in the field and s(he) will working on that no lab could accept me adding that do you think by presenting the poster, you help your self, you will see. I think what the OP means is that their PI will slander them.

The head of school will do nothing they support this PI and he did the same for another student! I am shattered I dont whether to present my work that I worked hard on it or be afraid from this PI

@buffy the PI asked me to meet outside conference, and then told me what do you think to presented a poster, do you think you are going to help your self! Then this PI mentioned that how s(he) is so much appreciated and he already told the people of the workshop badmouthing about me, then continued saying lets see and continuing no one is going to accept me in the lab because s(he) is appreciated! I feel like a bullet in my heart because it is clear bullying

@Monika: does the poster has a proceeding? You must have submitted something, don't you? In my field (CS), posters are submitted together with a 2 or 3-page abstract, and are peered review?

@Monika I monitored all your questions and answers in the Academia SE and I think there are some untold problem in your stories. First of all you are not saying which country you are studying for an unknown reason. It really limits assessing your condition cause the situation you are describing as an overall story is really unlikely to happen in developed western countries like US or European countries. Also, the way you are describing your adviser, makes me think of him as a crazy guy. But you are saying he is reputable. So that's a contradiction if a crazy guy be reputable among academia.

It is developed country! If you are star in academia and you dont have morals and being arrogant, you dont deserve to be mentor! (BTW) s(he) is always saying that s(he) is reputable and appreciated in the field although there are some of their papers have been rejected! Honestly, what are the metrics to consider well-established professor.

@Monika If some of his papers got rejected that's not a good measurement for his reputation. My adviser is a really nice guy and reputable but he has a lot of unpublished materials. BTW if you are saying this story is happening in a developed country you have well defined rights according to law even if you are a foreigner. For example, you could disclose your story to some "ombudsman" type people and they will assess your case independently and your adviser will not be able to harass you. Have you ever tried this option before?

@AloneProgrammer How's that a contradiction? It'd hardly be the first story of a manipulative and ruthless person in academia. It happens in universities, just like it happens in the workplace in general. As for not mentioning the country, it is presumably a measure to preserve some amount of anonymity.

@Anyon I'm not saying find a ruthless guy in academia is a contradiction! In fact, the academia is filled with ruthless people completely. But, it is really unlikely a ruthless guy that cannot work with his students stably become a reputable professor in a developed country. If he forces his students to resign after sometimes as described in the question, how he got his reputation? I mean how he could spare sometime to do research besides these kind of harassing activities of other people? I mean maybe I'm wrong but that seems contradictory to me at least.

@Monika Wait, s(he) is always saying that s(he) is reputable and appreciated in the field it means s(he) is saying that himself/herself is reputable or it's the opinion of other people in your field as well? If s(he) is saying that just by himself/herself so that completely makes sense. S(he) is definitely crazy.

Yes, s(he) said that, BTW they have papers that have been rejected! There is also another research group during another conference reported that his/her work is not accurate.

My impression is that (1) you believe that your adviser is reputable and appreciated in the field and (2) your only reason for believing this is that he said so. If both of these impressions about your belief are correct, then I'd advise you to stop believing it.

@Monika most academics have had papers rejected. That is normal. It does not even necessarily mean that those papers were bad.

@AloneProgrammer Unfortunately such maniacs do get successful in many places in academia nowadays. Just because you've been lucky so far it doesn't disqualify the testimony of so many. Just peruse SE Exchange and elsewhere on academic bullies. I hear some of that kind even got nobelled ?..

What you report is unfortunately fairly common. I have been in similar situation, which I will detail further down.
My first advice is:
Whenever you're being stalked by an unprofessional individual you must gather evidence of the harassment. There's no excuse for not doing that in modern times. You know your abuser, so have a recorder (e.g. your smartphone) ready and turn it on as soon as contact begins. Keep records of threats, insults, abuse. Had you recorded what you just described, you'd now be in the advantageous position. If you haven't documented them yet, induce the threats to be made again so you can record them somehow.
Second advice: Usually PIs are way less "powerful" than they have their students believe. The typical professor barely knows any faces outside of his/her own department. Exaggerating a couple of cold emails exchanged with "being friends with" other more influential professors is common practice. Anyone who's truly influential needs not to make any threats. Bullies are usually just weaklings, acting. So, stop believing this person, completely.
Third advice:
Keep your distance from this person. You're psychologically affected, and the abuser can see it. Only come any closer if you want to gather incriminating evidence (feel free to act), otherwise just completely shun from any interaction.
This includes your professional sphere. You must move away from this person also professionally. As mentioned in advice 2, you'll be surprised to find out that nobody knows this person in so many other circles just around the corner. Attending this specific conference was a mistake on this (surely there are so many others where you'd be way more comfortable), but alas, now you're there just do your best and avoid the maggot.
Fourth and final advice:
Stay awesome! Present your work, don't give undue credit to anyone, nor keep any collaborator in the dark. Enjoy your conference, make contacts, reinforce ties, meet new peers, smile, dress well, keep your head up. You're an independent scholar, you believe you have great ideas to share, so do it with great style. Your confidence will naturally attract good colleagues and keep the fake ones and vampires away.
Some of my experience: (i) feel free to read my fairly recent question where I had to deal with toxic ex-colleagues in a large conference. Everything worked out just fine. (ii) also as a PhD student I had a bad supervisor (though probably not as bad as yours) who wanted to either sabotage and take credit over my projects. Once I was set to attend a large international conference, and I submitted a work completely of my own without adding his name. He heard about it from another professor, so I vaguely apologised having made some confusion and just pretended to correct it. I knew how the conference proceedings worked, he wouldn't be there, and saw he'd never really check (fuzzy to find, foreign language, online-only, too many pdfs, etc). I then just handed him pdf files with his name showing, for the text and poster. In reality it, it didn't. Nowadays I feel is childish and risky and I don't recommend you do exactly the same (I was outraged), but the main message is: you don't play fair on bad guys.
Have a good conference!

What?! You are preaching to treat bad guys with iron punch in their face?! induce the threats to be made again really?! If she takes your advice I think she will do exactly the thing that her adviser wants to ruin his professional career. I agree her adviser may have not a good personality but I don't think so you are allowed to advice people to behave like this cause you've just heard her story and it is not fair to judge based on evidences from one side, at least not at this level that you are advising.

"induce the threats to be made again really?" -- Really. So that they can get properly documented. This is how unprofessional threats ought to be handled. Sorry if the idea makes you uncomfortable.

Sounds crazy to me! At the minimum, if she really "induces the threats to be made again", it will make her name famous and it's not the good thing to be famous for these kind of activities, at least among the academic community I believe.

I making someone repeat threats (which is easy, and looks like it will come out naturally in this case) won't make anyone famous, but effectively suing an abusive PI might.

childish and risky and I don't recommend you do exactly the same — Yes, this sums it up.

Thanks for answers! Honestly, I did what I believe and who I am ! I just want to move on and continue my passion in research! @AloneProgrammer, you are right you have to hear the other side, but how if you can pretend to false facts and the victim is the student

When I proposed a new methodology, s(he) said good and after that s(he) told that s(he) doubt this work and s(he) dont think that I can continue! In the other side, his/her colleague ( collaborator) I asked after resignation why you doubt what I did? the answer was " there is someone else who did that", I answered who, s(he) replied I dont know!!!!!

Then again the same person ( collaborator) after I asked him/her to get a reasonable answer: s(he) answered: you are the only who did that and you take a different direction, following that they are going to propose another methodology in the coming six months that tackles what I did, I was like what is the hell!

All I would like to say, this PI was trying in many cases to stop me from presenting my work, I cannot describe how was her/his attitude, it was awful and I cannot describe it @Scientist Actually I set the recorder of digital audio recorder, however, the recorder switched off, I feel pity because now I dont have any evidence about that, and this conference is related to my field and top tier and by the end there were many students and professor interested in this work

Honestly, I dont know what are the consequences are going to be, I feel deeply proud of myself and I wasnot afraid from these threats, however, in the other side, I feel so much exhausted as I still have one month to stay in the lab before leaving so that I can get the salary and move on, but I have already resigned from my position.

@Monika Many people have similar problem when wants to try something new in their PhD research but if your adviser is saying I don't want this method/approach or whatever you should just move on and don't insist on using something that your adviser does not like. If you really insist on something they will torture you (scientifically of course!) to confess that's not suitable and they could do it cause they're professors and at least they have some experiences in science which me and you as a PhD student does not have that to defend a new approach and convince them.

@Monika It happened several times to me that I proposed something but my adviser said I don't like this approach cause it's not efficient or accuracy is not good or whatever and I said OK and that's it. You should not insist on something cause it raises a red flag for them that you want to belittle them. If that approach is really good just keep it for your self and sometimes after your PhD you should be able to continue that but don't insist to use it in your PhD research. That's my advice.

@AloneProgrammer I think you're advising on a quite different situation, read the question again. Either way: why not make it an answer?

@Scientist If you read all of her comments, answers, questions, chats, etc. the only reason she gave why her adviser behave like this is that it seems she proposed something new but his adviser does not like that or does not want that for whatever reason. So, I'm just saying if you want to survive in academia you should obey and sometimes it will hurt you but that's the way if you want to grow and take your PhD successfully otherwise the best advisers in the world also does not like students, who confront them and do not listen to them.

@Scientist You are advising her to confront her adviser with counter attack but It will not work. Sometimes it's hard to wrap your head around why I should obey the adviser's command while it looks silly to me but you should do it if you want to survive and when you become a professor just behave your students in a better way. Otherwise, you are out of academic business and it's my personal opinion.

@AloneProgrammer Sure I appreciate we have different views here. Still, perhaps you'd like to make your own answer?.. Just perhaps mind to answer the specific situation. On your parallel discussion, I'd recommend this thread: https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4332/avoiding-conflicts-with-supervisors

@AloneProgrammer sorry you didnot read my story from the beginning! BTW, my advisor said about my approach is good and then in front of committee he said I doubt it without mentioning any reason! The field I am working on is new and he is not specialized in that point particularly!  If he is a good supervisor he must tell me what are the reasons that makes him doubt and propose another solution, but he didnot and that is my case, I know you will not believe! but that what happened! please before accusing people, read their story carefully before judging

@Monika I didn't not accuse you! I just said sometimes it's better to move on and that's it. But if you took my words in other ways... I don't know...

@AloneProgrammer I do appreciate what you have mentioned and for sure it is a good advice! but my case was different, yes I proposed something new and he accused me that I take it from some where else and sometimes saying good and finally doubt and then forced me to leave my first year and now they want to put their names on my methodology after I resigned! I would be happy if they tell me something else to do rather than that.

I am sorry to say that this PI had made scientific mistakes in my topic which will lead to block completely, I understand every point, but sometimes I have to tell that this should be like that, and may be this a result that they dont want to continue however they just mention they doubt, so it is true may be the didnot like that I am proposing a new solution which is required and essential given the feedback by audience in the conference.

I think it is good to realize that this behavior by PI is not accepted and I am not the only case in same group! However, I am feel sorry for one year and feel comfortable to leave this prison which affected me mentally and the abuse I faced and many days I cried and no one care and the belittling I faced, it is enough, I dont want to see more students face that!

Don't be panic.
If everything you said is true, your PI does not deserve to be a co-author, and I would suggest you not to put his/her name in your poster.

It is clear that (s)he is very appreciated in the field and no lab
could accept me if (s)he blocks me.

This is not true.
As you already resigned, the worst they can do to you is not writing a letter of reference. Nothing else.
Just think about it, would they ask/email other research groups "Hey, I just want to check if you-never-heard-of Monica is applying to your group, (s)he is very bad blah blah"? If that really happens, it is them to be questioned.
Note that they do not gain anything by badmouthing you. People can question their ability to select students. And if this behaviour is consistent with different students, they will make a bad reputation for themselves.

Updated:
From @CaptainEmacs:

Sorry, but this is not realising how blacklisting works. If the PI is
  indeed that powerful, they can do a lot of damage. While OP tries to
  continue in the field, the PI can basically make a side dismissive
  comment or explain how difficult a person OP was or - outright false -
  statements about what OP did, including making underhanded claims
  about sabotage or thefts, out of knowledge of OP. The best chance for
  OP is to switch fields where PI doesn't have a reach or name or go to
  some other big shot who is not influenced by PI and try to convince
  them about their qualities, but this is hard.

I've never heard of such things. Do you have a source for it? or is this a rumor that you hear?
"Powerful" in academia just means that somebody does a lot of good research, and has a lot of collaborations. It doesn't mean they can affect the decision of anybody outside their department.
And if somebody is trying to tell me about their bad former student, the first questions come to mind will be: why this guy needs to spend so much effort going after a random student? why does he think I will care? why can't he just move on?

Well, this is far from something that can be resolved logically, but: I agree with this answer.  Badmouthing your own graduated students makes you look bad whether the comments are true or not.  It is so unprofessional that I have almost never witnessed it.

I am the OP, what I can do now, it is unfair! I dont know whether I have to present my poster tomorrow or just be afraid and go away! I like my research so much! In the same time, when I see this PI, i felt so sick besides the mental health I suffer, my body is burning out! It is unfair what I should, I am going to lose my mind, all of that I did something new and the PI didnot accept it, and now want to damage me and monopoly this field! Why the destiny not  to revenge from those people, they think they control every think in the life! I am so tired

I paid the registration on my own! you cannot imagine how I suffer, I dont eat very well because I am in foreign country, no one can imagine how I much I am tired because of this psycho PI who said to me every one the field appreciate me and you not helping yourself to attend the conference, it nasty bullying! Please if you were in my position, should I present the poster, if not every one will believe what s(he) said that I didnot do that work.

@Monika You should present your poster!

@qsp that what I am going to do, thanks for your encouraging, and I wish nothing not good is going to happen to me after that.

"would they ask/email other research groups" -- this is common practice around academic circles in some countries, e.g. China. I have heard of a lot of such cases where some ex-PhD student couldn't find another position (in the same area).

I agree with @PeteL.Clark.  In my experience, a professor going out of their way to bad-mouth their own former graduate student is a serious red flag against the professor, not the student.

@JeffE My former supervisor routinely badmouthed his own grad students, other faculty, and other people in his field. He even badmouthed me to a professor who was hired after I left the program. He's now the department chair. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that his unprofessional behavior raised a red flag to anyone.

@user113878 I am often not sure whether there are truly bubbles in academia where misconduct and unprofessional behaviour (such as largely is widely reported) are abnormal, or whether some users here are keen to sell this impression. Badmouthing supervisees who refuse to play puppet is the oldest card in the game...

@Scientist Murder and theft is widely reported in the non-academic world. It's still not the norm.

@Darkwing There's a clear distance between murdering and showing unprofessional behaviour. I believe one of them is widespread in academia and elsewhere.

@Scientist Well, I'd contest the widely reported. In my perception there are rarely substantial cases of misbehaviour reported - my perception in general is contrast to yours, I have yet to find a bubble of egregious misbehaviour. I'd just wanted to give you a hint to maybe re-evaluate your perception, as it seems similar with other criminal activity that statistical occurrences are way lower than what many perceive from the reporting (in most of the world, granted, there are regions where the rate is pretty off).

You do need to be very careful with authorship rules. According to many funding agencies in the US, the student doesn't own the data if you are in funded in the lab. It is the university who accepts the funds owns all of the data and the PI is the steward of the data. Your professor may be justified in requiring authorship given some of these rules. I would dig into this and find out the specifics before making a big claim about what you want to do. If you're not in the US, or even if you're in the US, I would check with your university's research or ethics offices. They will likely know the legality of data ownership that is implied by the granting agencies and help you know what you can and cannot do. I would suspect this data ownership rule is more similar than different when looking around the world.
But my advice is to just not fight it. Some battles are not worth it. This can be messy, and putting a name on a paper is a cheap fix. That's the safe and courteous way to handle what could possibly be legal issues due to data ownership.
Edit
There were some questions in comments, so here's more details. The primary resource is very dense, but most university research departments are pretty explicit about data ownership. At least the NIH and the NSF has this rule. A Good overview and quick summary of what counts are provided here. There was a pretty big case awhile ago where postdocs published without the data owner's consent, and it had to be retracted (this one is a very interesting data ownership case!). As you can see, ask your university research department, and if you don't know the specifics, assume you do not own any of the data.

I dont have this PhD in US, and I dont think so that the data is related to them, as as I mentioned this methodology I have developed on my own! But from your words, I dont know if you warn me from presenting my work! That is going to make me looks like I stole the work and it is not mine and this what the former supervisor want.

@Monika If you don't take the people's advice here and want to present your work, so what's the point of asking question here? If you really want to do that and ignore your former adviser, so go ahead and do that but keep mind you should deal with its consequences and that's it. At the end of the day, it's really a personal decision and you should consider all positive/negative sides.

Just because your PhD is not in the US doesn't mean that the data ownership rules are not similar. You need to check your local rules to make sure it's even legal to claim sole ownership of the work.

@monika If all your ex-advisor wants is to have his name on the work, then what does it cost you - except pride - to do that? No, it isn't right, but it means that you still get to present without angering him. It's the pragmatic thing to do.

@Flyto that is exactly what this person wants , while badmouthing her, and others who didn't "dance", just the same.

Yes, it is. And sometimes it is worthwhile to swallow one's pride, and let the bully get their way, in order to move on. Monika may or may not feel that she can do this, but it seems like the option with the lowest risk of bad consequences.

You are conflating legal issues and academic authorship here. Academic authorship is about creative contributions. Supplying some data (whose acquisition procedure was already published) doesn’t count for this – though this rule is often broken, but that does not matter here. As for legal issues, I have never heard that you can “own” data in a way that gives you control about results obtained from that data (publishing the entire database may be subject to copyright though), except for specific contracts, which I would consider very questionable if they cover this case.

I am not conflating legal issues and authorship. The university as owner of the data has the sole right to choose how and when results are shared, and the PI as appointed steward is the one who has the right. Many universities are very clear about this and require students to take a research ethics course where legal cases about this are read and discussed (like this one). I edited to add links and make the statement more exact. Again, if one is any bit uncertain, the answer is to ask your local research office.

I have presented the poster, and there were audience interested and asked me for more details to send them and a professor who understand  my situation! I would like to clarify something what I have presented is my own methodology not data related to university or something like that, it is my own idea and they dont have the right to put their names as what they have mentioned they doubt my proposed methodology without any evidence and based on that they forced me to resign and now they want their names to be displayed and threaten me and he already made badmouthing as I figured out

, it is a long story, but I think I am thankful for left this lab,stroy me and already that has been done to another senior student. I dont care what will be the sequences as in the both case s(he) have already hurt my emotionally and trying to destroy me in away or another. However, I am expecting the worst from him/here

@ChrisRackauckas: I haven’t read all the sources you gave (and some are behind paywalls for me), but nothing so far seems to contradict my claims: 1) Data ownership and academic authorship are independent things. Producing some data entitles you to authorship of papers about the data acquisition, but not of papers that just use some “known” data. Some of the example cases are exactly about authorship of papers involving some yet unpublished a data. 2) Publishing the entire dataset may be a copyright issue; publishing some results derived from the data most probably isn’t. …

… 3) Data ownership comes from contracts not from laws. 4) If the asker’s work had been based on some data (which it wasn’t), she would have gained access and worked on that data in accordance to whatever contract governs the data (as she was paid to do exactly this). If she took the data and continued working after quitting, this may be a breach of contract (but would not result in any changes of authorship). Publishing results based on this data after leaving the position could again be a breach of contract, but that would be a weird contract since something like this happens all the time.

"2) Publishing the entire dataset may be a copyright issue; publishing some results derived from the data most probably isn’t." No, some of the links I give directly contradict this. Results derived from data are considered part of the primary research. "1) Data ownership and academic authorship are independent things." No, this is again directly contradicted. The owner or steward of the data (university + PI) has the right for whether the data or results derived using the lab's funding can be published. Publishing without their consent is not intellectual property infringement.

"3) Data ownership comes from contracts not from laws." The links also mention the some of the laws that establish this, like the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 established what all counts as research content which includes things like interpretations of results (going back to 2). "4) If the asker’s work had been based on some data (which it wasn’t)" If you are funded by the university or grants, you are an employee of the school and you cannot assume intellectual property isn't always yours. Not just data (though data is somewhat more clear).

Again, at my university this was made clear since every student had to take a research ethics course which covered this. These rules may be local to your area, and what I detail is what I know (the US). If you are not in the US, it may be different, and the people to talk to would be your campus research office or research integrity/ethics office. I just hope it is at least clear that anyone looking to do anything like this should get legal advice on their situation from someone who knows your local laws.

I am sorry, but I didnot get any data, or any kind of guidance and support and I did all the methodology on my own, so is my work still belong to them! They asked me to leave my PhD as they doubt my methodology and now after resignation and presenting at the conference, they want their names to be in my work and they have never helped or give data or any thing! I am expecting the worst from them because they are liars and there nothing in the contract mentioning what to do or not, I did that because it is a real problem in research and they underestimated me.

This PI took me outside the conference and began to threat me and saying that I am supposed to put his/her name and then they can agree or not, but firstly I have did the work on my own, they doubt without any constructive feedback and then I resign! It is effrontery, because it is contradictory what this PI want, he/she was trying to cancel my presentation by sending emails to organizers, anyway I am expecting the worst and they already made badmouthing about me

If they already doubt data, why they wanted their names to be on my paper at the  conference where they doubt already! It is illogical! They wasted year of my life and now he/she will slander from me and not letting any lab to accept me.

So, I wonder what is the case and how to deal, there is no data related to them as there is no devices to work on, I was alone alone and did all of that on my own!

"I am sorry, but I didnot get any data, or any kind of guidance and support and I did all the methodology on my own, so is my work still belong to them! ". No support means you weren't a TA, RA, on a fellowship, or supported by grant funds. Remember, money from the institution has the same contracts and places the PI as steward in almost all of these cases. No support means you didn't use lab equipment were not paid a salary by the school. If you had no support, then you're in the clear and have nothing to worry about! That is just very rare for a PhD student.


text:
Adding Presentation and data in Google Scholar
I would like to ask whether it is possible to add a presentation and data in google scholar. I am asking that because during conference there were people interested in using my data and presentation, however, these data hasn't been published yet.
So, my question is: could the presentations and data be cited as published articles or not?

I don't understand what you are asking. Are you suggesting to add your conference talks as "publications" in Google Scholar? Do you want to know how to add a link to slides and other material next to a listed publication? Or something else entirely? "Counted" by whom? Could you please check your grammar and add a "real" question with a question mark at the end? This sounds like it could be a good question for this site, but it needs work.

Sorry for poor English, I have edited my question. Hope it is clear now.

If I understand you correctly, you'd like to publish content in a way that shows from your Google Scholar profile. Luckily there are many ways of getting that done nowadays, and quickly.
I suggest you upload and curate all of your datasets and raw annotations to a stable, reputable data repository, such as Figshare, Zenodo, or Mendeley Datasets. As suggested in another answer here.
Once you have your dataset ready and understandable, I recommend you write a manuscript about it for publication. You can easily publish a draft version on a preprint server, such as arXiv.org and/or related websites. There you're done: as soon as indexed Google Scholar should be able to find your manuscript. From this point the situation is akin to this and related questions, in case of any doubts.
Welcome to Open Science. As some peers say, "open science is merely science done right".
Good luck!

Google Scholar usually (not always) just crawl the contents which are organized like a research article. If it's just a presentation (e.g. powerpoint, LaTeX beamer, poster, etc.) you could upload it in F1000Research or Figshare which could give you a DOI and will be fully citable. But it does not guarantee that it will be indexed by Google Scholar. Also I like Figshare cause you could share your data with presentation/paper/pre-print under Common Creative license (it's not the only license available in the Figshare).