text:
Is this way of writing e-mails to professors asking for funded PhD positions to work under their supervision good?
I am a person in an Asian country who plans to write to professors in Europe for a PhD position in Math for the session of 2022. I know Europe has a lot of countries and is certainly not a uniform block but I think the way of writing e-mails must be similar.
I want to know if my way of writing e-mails is good, so that professors actually look at them and take an interest in my profile. Since I don't know any of them, I can't afford to write a not so good e-mail, especially because there are only a few people working in my research area.
This is the way I write to them. I always attach my CV to the e-mail (4 pages long):

Respected Professor,
I am a resident of [my Country name] and I completed my masters in mathematics in June 2020 from [My Institute Name].
I am looking  for PhD positions in Algebraic Geometry.
Since June 2020, I took a break to self study more mathematics courses but could not apply anywhere in 2021 due to personal reasons.
Upon learning about your work I went through your research satement and found it to be aligning with my interests, hence I would very much like to work with you. Kindly find my CV attached along with this e-mail. Can you please tell me if there is a vacancy for new PhD applicants in your working group for session 2022?
I am available to discuss the possiblilty further and look foreward hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
[My Name]

This is the e-mail I plan to send to all the professors I am interested in working with. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

In general, as long as the email is targeted, it is good.  We receive too many such spams or fishing emails.  They go straight into the Trash folder!

@Prof.SantaClaus I think your 1st and 2nd statements are contradictory. can you please elaborate what you mean?

What @Prof.SantaClaus means is that you should customize your emails to professors, and it shouldn't look as though they were just one among 10 professors you emailed. What do you find interesting about the professor's work? You need to talk about that for THAT professor's email, not just mass mail your CV and a generic statement to them.

I'm not an expert, but I think your emails need to be more targeted. You say "Upon learning about your ..... with my interests" but you don't specify how they match.

I always feel we are only telling part of the story in these „how to cold email“ support questions. The hard truth is, while there are better and worse ways to cold email, there simply is no way to cold email somebody who does not know you with any real chance of getting a position - a multi-year commitment - out of them.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/173122/is-this-way-of-writing-e-mails-to-professors-asking-for-funded-phd-positions-to-work-under-their-supervision-good

Check the university.  It may be that admission to the Ph.D. program is not decided by the individual professors, but by (a committee of) the department as a whole.

As others have said, this would either get either automatically filtered or manually put into the junk folder.

Respected Professor,

While I believe this is the correct address (after translation) in a number of Asian countries this is unusual in western countries. I wouldn't say it is technically wrong (though it does suggest that you may be sucking up to this person - a negative quality), but it does show the minimal effort has been put into this email. With this form of address you could spam many people with the same email, so any recipient may assume that is the case. You can assume: "Dear Prof X", is the most formal and respectful form of address in western countries, and would be more respectful than "Respected Professor" since it demonstrates you've at least taken the time to get their name right. Though be careful to not refer to someone who isn't a professor as a professor, that indicates that you didn't actually spend time finding out about them. If you happen to email anyone like that you should use "Dear Dr. X" instead.

I am a resident of [my Country name] and I completed my masters in mathematics in June 2020 from [My Institute Name].
I am looking for PhD positions in Algebraic Geometry.

What did you do in your masters? Did you write a thesis? If so what was the topic? This is the point where you have a chance to intrigue the recipient, why should they bother to consider you over any other random person who might contact them. The topic of your masters' thesis gives them some information about what you might contribute and if you're actually a good fit for their group. By giving the topic you demonstrate that either you know enough to tell that these topics are related, or that the person you wrote to can safely ignore your application as irrelevant.
If you are hoping to change fields you may want to add an extra (brief) sentence explaining why you want to now work in algebraic geometry. Or if your thesis topic convinced you to work in algebraic geometry you might add a brief sentence about that as well.

Since June 2020, I took a break to self study more mathematics courses but could not apply anywhere in 2021 due to personal reasons.

Probably too much information, but in any case the next thing you need to do is explain why you are contacting this person for a PhD opportunity.

Upon learning about your work I went through your research satement and found it to be aligning with my interests, hence I would very much like to work with you. Kindly find my CV attached along with this e-mail. Can you please tell me if there is a vacancy for new PhD applicants in your working group for session 2022?

Too generic, you could use this sentence with anyone you emailed and so haven't demonstrated that you are invested in joining their group (otherwise you would go into more detail). You need to explain to them why them, not in the sense that they are very respected in their field, but rather how do your interests align with their interests.
This section should be targeted at whoever you are emailing, and if you didn't need to spend much time on it, then its probably bad (unless you happened to do your masters' thesis on their work). Because you need to spend more time on this section, you probably won't be emailing as many people as you otherwise would. But this forces you to only email the most appropriate potential supervisors, and so the people you email can be more confident that you may be a potential student/it's not a waste of time to look at your CV. Think of this like game theory if you're familiar with it: by specialising each email to its recipient, you are making it so that you've wasted more time if they reject you. If the person you're emailing sees this signal and knows it can't be falsified (such as by using a template) then they know they work on something interesting to you, rather than just working in your field.
You should also be careful not to show a lack of attention if their website says: "we are currently looking for PhD students, see [site]", "We have no positions available at this time", "PhD inquires are always welcome". In the case of no positions available you may want to inquire about whether they anticipate any opening up in the near future, or if they know of anyone else in a related field who is looking, or about to begin looking, for PhD students. It might also be worth asking them about this if you are cold-emailing them and they haven't said that they are looking for students or that inquiries are always welcome.

I am available to discuss the possiblilty further and look foreward hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
[My Name]

For the ending I would say "Sincerely," rather than "Yours sincerely," sounds more appropriate. Also "I am available ..." doesn't sound right to me, though at the very least it should be "possibility" and "forward".

In addition to the above, I'm going to take a guess that there are a couple of cultural differences impacting how you wrote your letter and are leading you astray for contacting potential European supervisors. I would be interested to hear if you think any of these may be correct/relevant in your case.
The first guess is that standardised tests/grades probably contribute less towards who gets hired/accepted in western cultures. When hiring someone, you want to know that you chose the best person, but this is based on what knowledge/skills/attitude the person could bring moreso than on what standardised tests say. Because filtering based on this takes more time than filtering according to grades (which are easy to order), each applicant costs the professor more time to decide upon. Therefore the expectation is that applicant provides stronger signals that this is important to them (by spending more time preparing the email in such a way that it will be wasted if they are rejected), as well as providing more information hinting towards their knowledge/skills/attitude and how it could fit into and help the group.
While I would be incredibly surprised if which people are hired as PhD students is decided solely by the grade they received in undergrad/masters, I could believe that there might be more leeway if everyone who applies is influenced by an assumption like this.
The second guess is that face-saving practices are much less common in western countries than eastern countries. I'm wondering if the expectation of face-saving may lead you to writing more general statements which have less of a chance of being wrong or exposing a mis-understanding that you have. Since a loss of face is not as bad in western cultures the expectations may be that prospective students take more risks where they might expose ignorance, but if they are good then they will demonstrate a better understanding of the topic than they otherwise could.

@N A McMohan It is my very humble request to you to have a look at similar question of mine:https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/177253/in-order-to-write-a-good-email-not-generic-or-close-to-generic-to-prospective

No, the email is not good at all.
First, one step back: Why are you emailing? In your email, you are asking whether there is a vacancy in the research group. If there is one, it will be advertised whereever PhD positions for the country/subject combination get advertised. So look there instead.
Second, while mentioning algebraic topology puts you ahead of the curve (assuming you indeed write to someone doing algebraic topology), the whole "our interests align"-bit is utterly generic. If you are indeed telling the truth, be specific! Be very, very specific! If you are lying here, don't.
Minor nitpick: Delete the "Since June 2020"-paragraph, this isn't important enough to take up the very valuable space in a good cold-calling email.
Conclusion: Taking into account Point 1, it only makes sense to cold-call potential PhD advisors in your situation if you are hoping to search for funding together with them. This would consitute a significant time investment for both of you, so be aware that you are asking for a lot here. So try to identify one (maybe two) potential supervisors that are an awesome fit for you, and make sure that the awesomeness of the fit is clear from the email. Also, do look for advertised opportunities and apply for everything which is a decent fit.

Thanks for the advice , can I make it less cold   by telling in the mail itself the books I have read   in algebraic geometry , relevant extra courses taken, title of my masters thesis along with brief  discription of it. I want to make it as less cold as possible so can you please guide, if you have some time to spare.

res, please don't ignore the first part of this advice -- I always feel puzzled receiving such mails. Why people think there are spare budgets to hire anyone on our side? Funded positions are usually advertised, so you should clearly state whether by "having a position" you expect people to employ you (or you already have a grant/funding/whatever).

@rg_software In part i think its a hang over from when staff did tend to have the abilty to raise funds to take on students. For example, 20-30 years ago, my department would have funded 10ish students a year, and the process for allocating those studentships was fairly informal. Secondly, while it is unheard of in the UK (and most EU countries?) for people to just have money they could use to take on a student lying around, it is not so much the case in all countries. Finally, a potential supervisor might know of scholarships/schemes that the candidate is not aware of.

@res the key point to making it less cold is to show that you've done proper research into what the person you are emailing does. For example, say something like "I read your paper on X and found it facinating because of A, B and C" - the supervisor needs to feel the email is written specifically for them. Here is the rub with cold emailing though - each email needs to be tailored to the specific prof you are emailing,but the chances for success for each email is low - even if the prof wants to help you, in most cases they won't be able to, so you need to send out enough emails.

@IanSudbery "I read your paper on X and found it facinating because of A, B and C"  I think reading from papers take a lot of time as some papers are actually dependent on other papers . I plan on writing by reading abstract  and begining 2 -3paragraph of a few papers of prof. I think that would be fine.

@res Aren't the first 2-3 paragraphs of a paper just general intro and/or literature review? I don't think you can make insightful comments about the paper just by reading the intro. You should read the Discussion and Conclusions at the very least.

@IanSudbery, yes, I understand, but my main point is not "I don't have money", it is "money is the elephant in the room", and I find it super-strange when a carefully composed / personalized / well-researched email doesn't even mention this issue as if it does not exist!

@rg_software My point is that people might working on incorrect or outdated information that money isn't the elephant in the room.

@res This is better than nothing, but reading does take a lot of time, and that is specifically why it will impress professors that you are specifically interested in them, rather than interested in a PhD in general.

@Arno Can you please look at this similar question of mine : https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/177253/in-order-to-write-a-good-email-not-generic-or-close-to-generic-to-prospective . I am really in need of guidence.

No, this e-mail is not good at all. The other answers have already explained why not. But you say you want a "canonical answer," so let's go through line-by-line.

Respected Professor,

In English-speaking North America and Europe, this is already a red flag. I see this often, so I assume it is the proper form of address in some English-speaking country (India?). But in North America and Europe, this is not how we address mail. Worse, the mails we do receive that begin with "respected professor" are almost never worth reading; so, we have learned to trash such mails without reading them.
The proper form of address may vary by country; "Dear Professor X" or "Hi Professor X" should be OK throughout North America and Europe. Note, you should put the actual name into this block; otherwise, I assume you are just copying-and-pasting a generic response to hundreds of people (at which point, I immediately stop reading and trash it).

I am a resident of [my Country name] and I completed my masters in
mathematics in June 2020 from [My Institute Name]. I am looking for PhD positions in Algebraic Geometry.

Here is the key point you need to internalize: most readers are just going to skim the first paragraph and then press delete. Your readers receive a ton of mail, much of it from prospective students, and do not have the time or inclination to carefully review all of them.
So, your job in this mail, and especially in this paragraph, is to convince them that:

You are very impressive, and
Your interests are very well-aligned

If you fail on either of these counts, they will delete without responding. In fact, a pretty high percentage will delete without responding even if they are convinced, but there's nothing you can do about that.
So, your first paragraph needs to impress them. And I mean really impress them. Something like: "I am looking for PhD positions in Algebraic Geometry. I have 3 papers in [impressive journals], have won an award from [somewhere] (the most prestigious body of mathematics in my country), have the equivalent of a 3.91 GPA, and am particularly interested in [some niche topic]." Note that you are:

being concise,
listing the specifics right here in the first paragraph, and
using a language the professor can understand (e.g., converting the GPA to whatever scale is used in the professor's country, explaining that your award is from the most prestigious mathematical body in your country, etc.)

I realize that you may not have any super-impressive accomplishments like this, but you need to list whatever you do have. Put it all out there in this mail, because if you don't, you will not get another opportunity.

Since June 2020, I took a break to self study more mathematics courses
but couldnot apply anywhere in session 2021 due to personal reasons.

Nope. See above. In this e-mail, your one job is to volunteer information that will impress them. This information is not impressive, so don't volunteer it. Delete this paragraph completely.

Upon learning about your work I went through your research satement
and found it to be aligning with my interests, hence I would very much
like to work with you. Kindly find my CV attached along with this
e-mail. Can you please tell me if there is a vacancy for new PhD
applications in your working group for session 2022?

This is so generic it is completely meaningless. What part of my "research statement" aligned with your interest? Again, I assume you are just sending this to hundreds of professors. Instead, you should briefly explain why in particular you want to work for me -- which of my papers did you read? Why did you find them interesting? What related work have you done? If we worked together, what topics could we pursue?
Also, I wouldn't say "I would very much like to work with you." You don't even know me! Instead, say that you're interested in "exploring this further" or "discussing future possibilities." Yes, it may be that you are desperate and willing to take anything, but you need to conceal this; desperation is not attractive, and professors receive tons of mail from desperate people.

I am available to discuss the possiblilty further and look foreward
hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
[My Name]

If you are asking for a job, it goes without saying that you're available to discuss, etc. It is important that your mail be very short (just 2 or 3 short paragraphs), so don't waste any space with generic statements like "looking forward to hearing from you." Delete all this (except your name). Seriously! I realize some cultures require polite, effusive farewells, but in Western Academia, putting your name alone is perfectly fine, and it's the best option in many cases.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that there are several misspellings in your mail. I realize English may not be your native language, but you should get your mail proofread by a native. Most mails that contain misspellings also highly correlated with mails I don't care about, and so most academics have learned to hit the delete button after the second or third error.

Love this answer! But do you think adding all the accomplishments in the first paragraph would come across as boastful in the European context?

Coming from an Australian context (which is not as boastful as an American one, though I'm not sure how it compares to European context), I would say its not boastful as long as its not too long and it is a minimal, factual list. Something like "I was the only student to receive the [some award] from the prominent mathematical body [somewhere]" comes across as boastful to me, something like "I received [some award] from [somewhere] (the most prestigious body of mathematics in my country)" comes across as a statement of fact to me (plus some extra info to help me interpret it).

@cag51 Hi!! Can you please consider guiding on this similar question of mine:https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/177253/in-order-to-write-a-good-email-not-generic-or-close-to-generic-to-prospective

So this is a good case study of what I'm talking about in this answer. When considering your request, I asked myself "is this a personal request from XaXa [e.g., because they find my answers super helpful], or are they just spamming everyone?". In the former case, I certainly would have agreed. But then I saw that you had made the same generic request to every answerer on this page, and so I decided not to even respond (though I later decided to add this comment). I mention this because those reading your e-mails will use a very similar process when deciding whether to respond. Good luck!

First, I want to emphasize that composing such a “generic” message that you plan to distribute without some case-by-case modifications will not work very well.  You have to make any such emails personal to you and to the professor.
This means making it explicitly clear that you have read some papers by this person: something as vague as “alignment” of research interest will not get you brownie points.  Some better would be “I have read your recent paper [give citation], and found [Theorem] particularly interesting because… “ or something along those lines.
Next you need to make this specific to you.  Why are you interested in working with this professor?  What courses or related skill set (including self taught material) or just intense interest supported by courses or experience do you have that are useful for work or study in this area.  In other words, why should this professor invest time in mentoring you?
Finally, excuses like “personal reasons” have IMO no place in such letters.  You don’t want to tell your life story: most people aren’t interested, at least initially.  If this person brings up the topic, you can expand on personal reasons in a follow up emails.

Can you please have a look at this question of mine:https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/177253/in-order-to-write-a-good-email-not-generic-or-close-to-generic-to-prospective

@XaXa Apologies: the link you have sends to this question.  I presume you want to link to another question.

I don't think this is a good letter.  I would personally leave out the bit about the study break as irrelevant.  I can see how others may disagree.
More importantly, you're not telling the prof what you're looking for.  You need a funded position, but you're not asking for a funded position.  When one needs money, it is important to ask for it.  You will only create ambiguity and confusion resulting in unnecessary communications if you don't ask for what you need.

for an equivalent request I went for something similar,
here is your mail with some changes to the form so it s more "professional"
tips:

take care of the words/courtesy rules you use
take care in being precise

ps: there might be some "minor" mistakes in my writing because english is not my main language ;) I let you double check everything

Dear Professor [Name],
Currently living in [Country, City], I completed a master in mathematics [be more accurate, that's important for them] in June 2020 at the [Institute Name, Country, City].
Upon learning about your work I went through your research activities and found it to be in the domain I am looking for. I am looking for a PhD position in Algebric Geometry [be more precise] for next year and would love to work by your side.
For more informations about me, please find my resume attached along with this e-mail.
I am available to discuss with you and look forward hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
[Name]

good luck for your application

Thank you very much !


text:
Do universities benefit from making salary information public?
In the United States, I think it is required by law in several states to make salary information at universities public. In general, in most western universities, it may not be very hard to find salary information, particularly the publicly-funded ones.
Is there any benefit to universities by making this information public?
I am interested in the kind of "active" benefits which universities that don't publish salary information (and are not required by law to do so), lose out on. Further, if universities were not required by law to make this information public, would there be any benefit (to them) in continuing to do so?

This generally isn't required by law for faculty in private universities.

By "salary information", do you mean the current salaries of particular individuals, or do you mean the salary scales associated with broad job roles?

@DanielHatton Individual salaries rather than salary scales.

In that case, I'd be concerned that, if there's not a specific law requiring the salaries to be published, publishing them might be illegal under normal data protection laws.  Can someone familiar with US data protection law confirm or deny?

@DanielHatton Most US states have Freedom of Information laws, I think that's where this comes up.

@DanielHatton What laws?

@AzorAhai-him- The US has something that eventually satisfied the European Court of Justice that it was OK for the EU to enter into a safe harbour agreement with the US for data transfers, right?

@DanielHatton No idea, it was mostly a tongue-in-cheek comment. But jakebeal is correct, this is done because state employee's salaries are public information by law in some states, Ram just doesn't know that so the question is a bit confusing to read in that respect.

@AzorAhai-him- Right, but I think Ram's question is whether, in those states that don't have laws requiring academics' salaries to be published, it would be in universities' interest to publish them anyway.  My thinking was that, if US Federal law has something equivalent to Europe's GDPR article 6 paragraph 1(c), then it's possible that publishing the salaries is forbidden in any state where it's not compulsory.

@DanielHatton " ... then it's possible that publishing the salaries is forbidden in any state where it's not compulsory." Hmmm, I didn't consider that aspect of it.

In every instance of which I am aware, the publication of salaries in US universities comes from a combination of two factors:

Transparency laws that require publication of salaries of all state government employees, and
State universities where every employee is technically a state government employee.

Publishing salaries is nice for transparency, but often creates management headaches (e.g., resentment between people with similar experience but different pay levels). As such, I would expect that if publication of salaries was not required, then most universities would either stop doing so or would drastically limit the number of people to whom it applied (e.g., only to higher level administrators).

Also, while it's public, it's not necessarily easy to access or find.  And some 3rd party reporting on faculty salaries give quite inaccurate or misleading numbers (e.g., including benefits, award money, etc).

"Management headaches". Yeah, pretty much, if salaries are different for no clear reason it is the workers' interest for them not to be and to pressure for a raise. On Youtube: Why you should tell your coworkers your salary.

@LoremIpsum I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, just observing the likely management perspective.

Is there any benefit to universities by making this information public?

Salary transparency benefits voters by informing them.  They find out if politicians are using their tax dollars well.  If public universities did not provide salary transparency, they might loose the support of voters, and subsequently their tax revenue.
Institutions not accountable to tax payers would often prefer that salary information not be public.  The most wealthy universities might see public salary information as a hiring tool.  Employees can disclose their salaries if they wish.

I believe some employment contracts preclude salary disclosure on the part of the employee

In the UK, there's a strong overlap between the set of people who support legislation requiring publication of the individual salaries of any particular group of workers, and the set of people who are already campaigning for those salaries to be reduced (sometimes to zero, i.e. for employees to be replaced by volunteers).

@ScottSeidman Even for public universities in the US? Is there a reason for this, given that salaries are going to be published anyway?

No, that would be a policy of some private companies.

@ScottSeidman - there may be some edge cases, but in general, the National Labor Relations Act does not allow US employers to forbid employees from discussing their salary (during their "off hours"). And the trend has been toward making this stricter; for example, some states don't even allow employers to ask about current salary during an interview.

As others have said, universities and government agencies generally publish their salaries in order to comply with transparency laws. Nepotism, for example, is harder to get away with if all salaries are publicly posted. But from the university's perspective, this has the potential to:

Generate bad press, if a reporter feels (rightly or wrongly) that an employee is overpaid, and
Give employees more leverage during salary negotiations.

So I seriously doubt that most organization would release salary information if they didn't have to.
By the way, it may seem like universities' opposition to transparency laws are entirely selfish, but let me make one counter-example. If Dean Bob's salary is triple the market rate, it may seem self-evident to an outsider that the university is not "using their tax dollars well." But it may be that the university has already concluded that replacing Dean Bob with three market-rate deans would be a net detriment to the university; Dean Bob is "just that good." In this case, the public outrage at Dean Bob's salary would be entirely misplaced, and the university would be forced to choose between doing the right thing or doing what looks good. This interesting Ted Talk gives a good discussion of this phenomenon as it applies to charities.

Indeed, "cheap" is not always "good". But/and popular appraisal of these things is usually not very astute, in my observation. Sadly.

@paulgarrett “cheap” is rarely “good” when it comes to salaries of administrators - so say many administrators -  but “cheap” is often “good” when it comes to salaries of employees, including faculty or support staff.  It is a trend to hear administrators claiming there is no $$ to spend, except on themselves of course.

I'll note that publishing salaries can also give employees less leverage during salary negotiations, on condition that the salaries are published in conjunction with a public wage scale formula.  An employer can say to an a prospective employee, "If we hire you, we will pay $X based on formula Z.  As we have made a public commitment to use formula Z when determining employee wages, we cannot negotiate this. However, you can earn an increase in pay by modifying the variables in formula Z."

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The university gave me a pay check less than my offer letter, what can I do?
I am a grad student at one of the University of California campuses. In my offer letter, it stated:

Congratulations! On behalf of the Committee on Admissions and Awards
and the Graduate Group in (Department name), I am pleased to offer you
the following financial support for the upcoming 4 years. The funding
will be in the form of a Graduate Student Researcher, Fellowship and
Teaching Assistant...The
details of your award are as follows:
Summer Support with Professor X (3 months at $5000.00 per month)
$15,000.00

I just got my first summer paycheck and the amount is only around $4000 (before tax). I sent some emails to grad coordinator, and some other parts of university but they didn't answer. I also sent an email to the professor and he answered "The pay check amount is true. Sorry, there is no more fund available for you at the moment!"
How is it possible? Can a professors behave like this? Why the offer letter of the university with the signature of the Department chairman below it, specifies some amount of money but the pay check is in different amount? How should I proceed?

This was originally closed because it was not clear whether this was a misunderstanding about how payroll works in the US, or an actual discrepancy. After OP's edit, this seems to be resolved in favor of the latter. So, I am hammering it back open.

When in the month did you start? If you started, say, a week into the month, your first paycheck could conceivably be pro-rated accordingly (with a partial paycheck in your fourth/final month for the one week you work that month to fill out your three months).

I assume that the "first summer paycheck" is for one month of work, is that correct?

@DanielR.Collins: Yes, but it must be $5000 per month not $4000. They gave me a check less than the offer letter.

You're sure you are looking at the gross pay?  Even the "before tax" amount might still be subject to deductions for health insurance, retirement contributions, mandatory fees, etc, which could in principle amount to $1000 per paycheck.

Also, did the offer letter contain a disclaimer like "subject to availability of funds"?  They usually do.  But of course, if funding fell through, they should have informed you sooner.

@NateEldredge: As the professor confirmed the amount is true and after some emails he told me I must work harder to get more funds!! I am sure non of the options you mentioned is true and I don't know how a professor can broke his promise and it is not also important for the university to answer my emails!

Do UC university have a center that I can follow up the problem there? It seems the problem isn't important for our branch.

Was your first paycheck for a full month's of work?

You say the offer letter was signed by the department chair.  Was it accompanied by any kind of letter signed by anyone outside the academic department; in particular, was it accompanied by a letter signed by anyone in the University HR team?  On a similar note, whose signature is on the cheque?  Does that cheque appear to come from the University payroll account, or from some other account?

@DanielHatton: No I didn't sign any other papers except one paper that I confirmed my personal information like name, address, etc before the summer session starts. The cheque doesn't have any signature but the stamp of university of California is below it.

OK.  I upvoted @FrancescoLelli's answer about contacting HR, but I'm slightly concerned that you may have been recruited and paid through some unofficial back channels, and if so, that HR might have no record of the fact that you're working for the University at all.

While this doesn't have any bearing on the main point, I will say that $5000 per month sounds like a lot: certainly more, at the current exchange rate, than a newly-appointed Assistant Professor could expect to be paid here in the UK.

I’m at the University of California and know a few things about how things work there. Your story is a bit too strange to be fully believable. The overwhelmingly most likely explanation is that you are not in fact getting paid less than what the offer letter said, but there is some miscommunication or misconception about what the offer letter and/or your payroll says. This may involve taxes, or some difficult to parse legalese or accounting language in the offer letter and/or the payroll printout.
A slightly less probable, but possible, explanation, is that there was a clerical error in the entry of your salary details into the system, that led to you in fact getting paid a different amount than you are supposed to. This actually happened to me when I started a postdoc (also at a UC school), and was easily corrected when I pointed it out.
The least likely explanation is that they are intentionally paying you less than they promised. In the UC system this would be essentially impossible to get away with, and would lead to quite severe consequences for anyone who was complicit, such as disciplinary action. Whatever the consequences to the people behind such a decision, I believe the university would not allow this to happen, and would move mountains to ensure that its commitment to you was honored.
Please talk to your department contacts to get this sorted out. The graduate program coordinator, graduate program chair, department vice chairs and chair, and department business manager would all be good places to start. Good luck! (And if it’s not too difficult, come back to update us on what happened… :-))

In the case of faculty salaries, a discrepancy could arise if someone appointed for 9 months expected to get 1/9 of the annual salary each month but actually got 1/12 because payments are spread out over the whole year. I'm not aware of such an arrangement for graduate student stipends, but I'm probably not aware of lots of things that happen in California.

I edited my question and added more information.

@ensan3kamel ok, that’s interesting but I can’t really advise you at that level of detail. As I said, talk to administrators at your department. They made you a promise, and they should, and hopefully will, honor it.

Couldn't a clerical error also have happened when the offer letter was drafted? I.e., they might be paying exactly what they wanted to offer, bit accidently ordered more.

@Maeher sure, it’s theoretically possible, but this falls under the category of “they are intentionally paying you less than they promised”, the least likely option I outlined. From OP’s perspective it should not matter whether they intended to write that amount in the offer letter. Assuming they didn’t make an obvious mistake like adding an extra zero to the salary figure, if OP used that as the basis for deciding to join this program, the promise should be honored even if it was made in error.

If the offer letter constitutes the contract that was accepted by OP, I would be very surprised if they didn't have to honor it. But it would explain why nobody seems to understand why OP is upset about the amount they're being paid.

Before doing anything I would suggest to check with HR. They may simply made a mistake...

Your letter of offer is a binding contract between you and the University. They must pay you the money you were offered for the work described.
Pursue your options inside the University, ie, Department, Personnel, Payroll, Dean's Office, etc.
If you do not get a correction from the University you can pursue legal action. You will need to consult a lawyer for that. The cost of a lawyer should be small or nonexistent since they will ask the University to pay those fees.

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


text:
My paper was rejected but was posted as a preprint with a DOI on Research Square. Can I now publish it in another journal?
My paper has been rejected recently but its content could be seen in the Research Square website. Why has this happened, and why did it also get a DOI link?
I asked and they answered:

Thank you for your message. Your work has been posted as a preprint on
Research Square through the optional In Review preprint service
offered by SpringerNature during journal submission.
A preprint posted on the Research Square Platform is issued an
official DOI and becomes a part of the citable scholarly literature.
DOIs are intended to be permanent records and cannot be fully removed.
Additionally, GoogleScholar, ResearchGate, EuropePMC and Crossref
automatically index preprints, creating a permanent digital presence.
In Review preprints remain posted regardless of the status at the
journal.
However, please note that the DOI also ensures that your work is
properly linked to you, which helps avoid another individual claiming
credit for your work. Finally, preprints are widely embraced by most
major publishers, so a preprint is unlikely to negatively affect your
publication chances.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

So can I publish this work in another journal? Since it is not published?
I don't understand why they have done that.

This needs details.  Who rejected your paper?  What did you agree to when you submitted this?

A prestigious journal rejected it. Normal submission sir

Was the journal in any way affiliated with research square?  https://www.researchsquare.com/journals

even if affiliated why put there after rejection

Did you opt-in to the "optional In Review preprint service offered by SpringerNature"? It sounds like you did, or at least the journal thinks you did, and that would answer the "why has this happened" part of your question.

Research Square seems to be an attempt by SpringerNature to make a profit by operating their own preprint server.  I suggest that this will never work and the scientific community will not support their efforts.
The fact that your work appears in Research Square has no relation to your submission of the paper to another journal.

In addition I don’t see how assigning a DOI implies transfer of copyright and thus how it can imply the paper cannot be resubmitted, but IANAL…

@ZeroTheHero Several preprint services would have problems if it did.

Transfer of copyright is something that must be done explicitly. But some journals won't publish things that have appeared in preprint. This might be an attempt by Springer's parent to lock out papers from (some) other journals even for papers not accepted.

So, you mean I cannot submit in other journals? It is not like that. but the fact that they put this paper to public access is strange.

I suspect you opted into this:

To opt in, all co-authors agree to have their manuscript posted as a
preprint with a CC-BY 4.0 license and a DOI, becoming a permanent part
of the scholarly record. Read more about our editorial policies here.

If you were tricked into this by an odd website then perhaps these journals are not reputable after all.
I have never heard of having the submission to the journal combined with the posting of a preprint.  I think these should be separate but I can see the appeal of combining this.

So I asked and they answered like above in the post. Can you please help me about my questions ?

No this is reputable journal from springer

"I have never heard of having the submission to the journal combined with the posting of a preprint." This seems to be a recent thing. I have seen something similar a few months ago with a Wiley journal and a preprint service called Authorea. Never heard of this before, but the journal itself was definitely reputable.

You are free to publish it anywhere. Nature has a tie up with research square only for preprint like Arxiv.


text:
How to learn to prepare good scientific illustrations?
I have recently started to appreciate the importance of illustrations and figures in scientific publications. Be it a visual abstract, a visual TOC, or part of a poster or a presentation, I always find a nice illustration to be quite catchy. Because of this, I want to put in some effort and learn what goes into preparing these illustrations.
Of course, I have the usual problem: I was never good in arts, and I can't really put my thought into a visual illustration, nor make the eventual idea into reality. Since I am working in theoretical physics I think I also have a harder time than some other sciences - the objects that I am working with are usually mathematical objects and proofs, and I can't really draw an equation, can I?
In contrast to illustrations, however, I've spent quite a lot of time on learning how to create good plots. In the case of plots I always had clear guidelines: from a given data, create a visualization that follows some basic principles with color scheming and choosing markers; using then the right software it's not hard to create visually appealing graphs. There's very little creativity involved in this process though.
Are there any similar "guidelines" for creating illustrations not based on qualitative data, rather abstract ideas? Is there maybe a book and/or a course that I might take?
I understand that scientific art and communication is a field in itself, however I am hoping that if I put in the time and effort, then, using the right tools, I could at least be mediocre in preparing illustrations. Or is creativity a pre-requisite for all of it?

While I don't agree with everything it says, this book is well worth a read.

Thank you for the recommendation; however, I am specifically looking for illustrations that are not based on data, but qualitative ideas. I am editing the post to make this more clear.

'working in theoretical physics... I can't really draw an equation, can I?'  Er, Feynman diagrams?  Streamlines/field lines?  Free body diagrams?

@DanielHatton It is a nice suggestion, indeed some things can be drawn. But that doesn't mean I can come up a good illustration for a paper where I prove that my operator commutates with annother one under special circumstances.

@LaBelleCroissant If your operator and the other one are expressed in Heisenberg matrix form for some system with a small finite number of eigenstates (e.g. spin up and spin down), can those matrices be interpreted as geometrical transformation operators (which, under your "special circumstances", produce the same result regardless of the order in which they're applied)?  A geometrical transformation might lend itself to diagrammatic representation.

For some fields, the (several) books by Edward Tufte set the standard. But a search of, say, Amazon for "Data Visualization" or "Scientific Illustration" will turn up a vast library of work. You can also add your field to the search to get a more specific selection.
But, like most things, the way to learn it is to practice and then practice more. Then try to get feedback on your efforts. Perhaps a colleague will tell you what the "see" in your work and you can compare the answers with your intent.

For scientific posters: There is a guy named Mike Morrison who has done a lot of work to make scientific posters better for the viewer. The concept is to make the main point (or take-home message) into a sentence or statement, and make this the focus of your poster. I've included an image to show this.
With standard posters, people oftentimes will read your title then ask you what the main point of your work is about. Having the main point front and centre tells the viewer this main point (without them having to ask), and then the viewer can ask you more in depth questions.
The benefits of using this design included:

Viewers that don't take the time to read through your poster will still know the main message.
Catches the audiences attention. They don't have to read through walls of text to find out what your main point is.
Less work for the reader, and so they can learn more at the conference.
Your time speaking with the viewer can be spent going into relevant details and engaging with the viewer, rather than getting to the main point.

I also recommend making sure your advisor is ok with using a format like this.
Image: This is an example poster. The main finding or take-home message is central to the poster. Additional information can be found on the side panels for you to reference when talking to someone, or for them to read on your own. Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/24/theres-movement-better-scientific-posters-are-they-really-better

References for further reading:
Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYk29tnxASs
Updated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RwJbhkCA58
Article with some criticisms: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/24/theres-movement-better-scientific-posters-are-they-really-better

What does Morrison recommend? We usually discourage link-only answers, because answers should stand on their own and links are subject to bit-rot. The approach sounds interesting enough to summarize it in an answer, though.

Thanks for letting me know in a kind way. I didn't realize the etiquette. I have updated the post accordingly.

While I personally find this particular example a bit too exaggerated, clearly emphasizing the key finding is certainly a good idea. It doesn't really answer the question though, which was about illustrations (possibly to be embedded in posters) and not posters per se.

One of the great advantages of professional work is that it allows specialisation and gains from trade.  One option you have is to hire an artist to create figures for you.  There are a number of artists that specialise in scientific artworks, many of whom have a reasonable amount of scientific literacy to help them "tease out" how to visually represent scientific objects, concepts or ideas.  Such work would usually require you to pay some money for services, and you would also give credit to the artist for the artwork in your paper, but it is likely to give you a much better illustration than if you create it yourself.

There are, I think, two different aspects to becoming a good scientific illustrator. The first, has to do with developing an ability to conceive the kind of illustration would be informative to a reader; the second has to do with developing the skills to bring the conception to fruition, either with traditional illustrative tools such as watercolor paints and oils (see, for example, this botanical illustration by Georg Dionysius Ehret, 1708-1770), lithography (see this superb example from Elizabeth Gould, 1804-1841), charcoal, etc. or by using modern computer driven approaches such as Inkscape and GIMP.
Of the two aspects, my personal experience has been that the problem of learning to use the tools (I can't draw and I can't paint, but I can use a mouse, a rollerball, or a sketchpad) pales in comparison with learning what it is that makes a good illustration and conceptualizing an appropriate illustration for a particular paper. Nonetheless, a good way to learn is to do what artists have done throughout the ages ... study other good illustrators. A source of constant amazement and inspiration to me are the illustrations in the magazine American Scientist (not to be confused with Scientific American). I'm not suggesting that every single illustration is noteworthy, but they are of consistently high quality and usually very appropriate for the article they serve. Additionally, many of the back copies of American Scientist are available, I believe, free of charge at JSTOR.


text:
How to pursue PhD after getting a low GPA (and no research) during my undergrad in India?
I am from India, and I would like to pursue further education (maybe even a Ph.D.). I've messed up my BE degree (in Computer Science and Engineering) by getting consistently low marks from the second to fifth semester. My 6th semester marks are a little bit better (8.12), but that still does not improve my overall CGPA (at 6.69). This means that I have only two semesters to improve my marks, but it seems unlikely that my cumulative GPA will be higher than 7.25 or so.
I've tried my best to ask my head of department about research opportunities, but it looks like there weren't any, to begin with. So, apart from reading some journal papers, I have no experience with research whatsoever.
I would like to get into MSc in Machine Learning/Deep Learning or Cognitive Computing, but with my poor performance, I will probably be rejected. What should I be doing in order to increase my chances of getting into a prestigious research university?

Are you looking to pursue an MSc/PhD in India, or abroad? We normally redirect questions like this to our "how can weak/borderline students get into grad school in the US" thread, but I guess we have no similar thread for India.

Probably a good moment for you to reflect on your personal reasons for believing graduate studies would be an appropriate path for you.

There is no doubt that your low score makes it difficult. However, it does not make it impossible.

There are national competitive tests (GATE/NET ...) of various kinds for admissions to Master's (and higher) programmes in India. If you do well in them, you improve your chances quite a bit.

Note that eligibility for these programmes in centrally funded institutes is usually 6.0 (or 6.5 in some cases) so you are above that level. In your application, it is worth pointing out your improvement in grades. This shows that your trajectory has a positive derivative!

If you are reading journal papers, it would be good to write a review/summary of what you have learnt as a report. If this is nice enough and accessible to other students you could try to put it somewhere for publication. That could count in your favour.

If you have programming skills and contribute to some ongoing (usually open source) project, that could count in your favour.

If you have been part of some productive groups during summer internships that could improve your chances.

Ultimately, doing research is different from doing well in examinations and courses. Those who are part of admissions processes are often aware of this and look at a number of factors.

There are many points to consider. You should think about what is your priority in the long-term since a PhD typically will take 5 years in India and 3 years in some other countries in the least, that too after a 2 years Master's degree. So if you don't really see yourself working on academic research for 3-5 years down the line, then a PhD is probably not the best way to go for you (PhD funding is a completely different ball-game and that can be a separate discussion on its own).
As for the GPA, I think a consistent track record is a good reference for the committee who would like to hire/admit a prospective PhD student. That could also not matter in rare cases when the applicant is required to provide a different score, e.g. GATE rank in India or subject GRE+TOEFL score for English in the US. A Master's degree is usually required before being enrolled into a PhD so focussing on getting into a suitable Master's programme is beneficial in this case. Also, some Universities have the requirement of a Master's thesis which increases the chances of getting a PhD offer since that shows that you have been involved in doing original research. My personal opinion is that good grades typically shows if a student is committed to their education and hence it is important to have somewhat nicer grades than in the lower percentile.
Also, an internship in research institutes/industries that might have a summer/winter program for short R&D projects might be a good starting point for you to check if you enjoy that experience. A PhD is an education and also training for a person to become an independent researcher that comes with several challenges which can be hard unless one finds it meaningful to do so. So before committing to something long-term check if it fits you.

I do not know the Indian system, here is the score in the UK.
Essentially, if your first degree marks are not good enough many choose to do a Masters, which is usually fee paying and the entrance requirements are not (usually) so high as a PhD.  In a way, a good Masters degree resets the record.
Alongside this, another thing people do sometimes is to volunteer in a "lab".
If you have programming skills, writing to a local group (University based) and volunteering to get work experience with them could help. Not everyone can afford this of course, but gaining experience in this way, and references and contacts might help.
This of course pre-supposes you have the skills and enthusiasm that would be useful!

I think you already know the answer, that if your grades aren't very good, your options for a PhD are also not very good. You could try to do a master's somewhere, hoping to improve your grades, or find a lower-tiered school that will accept you despite the grades.
But I hope you might take a moment to reflect on what might be the cause of your poor grades before you decide what to do next.  In my experience advising undergraduates at Michigan, where the students were all certainly bright enough, there were two basic reasons why a student might not be doing well.
Usually it was because they had too much on their plates.  Sometimes it was distractions like health problems or conflict at home that had them overloaded.  But usually, they were just taking too many credits and they never had enough time to get all the work done. For them, the answer was simple:  Take a lighter load.
Much less common, but much more serious, were cases where the students didn't like what they were doing.  They were majoring in computer science because their parents or maybe an inner voice were telling them how CS would lead to a great job. But they hated it and you could see it in their behavior, e.g., putting off projects until the day before they were due because they didn't enjoy them.
No one can spend their life in a career they hate.  Or at least, they shouldn't.  I think Steve Jobs got it right in his Stanford commencement address: To do great work, you must do what you love and if you haven't found it, you must keep looking.


text:
What do employers look for in a math PhD with a PDE/Complex Analysis background?
I'm currently in the 4th year of my PhD in math. My main research focus is complex analysis (geometric function theory) but I'm also learning and working on PDE modelling. After my PhD, I want to apply for an industry job that is (at least somewhat) research oriented. Ideally, I would like to apply/develop Partial Differential Equation (PDE) modelling as part of the job. I'm at a fork in my path where I believe it is more beneficial to go the PDE route for industry. (Although complex analysis has a long history of applications in almost every science.)
My two questions are:

How do I find out what are some of the current, most cutting-edge PDE techniques used in the industry? Of course, I talk to my academic mentors but I feel like there's a semipermeable wall between academia and industry where knowledge and information flows only from academia to the industry and not the other way.

What are some skills that potential employers look for from a math PhD with a PDE background?

I realize this question is too narrow in that it focuses only on jobs that apply PDEs but I welcome comments and answers from related fields; say, calculus of variations or numerical analysis.
Thanks for your time.

This seems to be a question about industry, not academia. Maybe the Workplace would be a better home for it: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/

If your interest is in partial differential equations, probably your best bet is to demonstrate your familiarity with established methods for numerical solution, maybe mesh generation. As far as straight-up mathematical modeling goes, explore specialized contractors who provide that service to others.

You're asking the wrong place, even the "applied" mathematics departments are basically completely disconnected from doing substantially useful things.

@FourierFlux Departments consist of people, and good departments have at least some people who have their finger on the pulse of what the world outside academia is actually doing.

I'll add to my previous comment: A would-be employer also likely would look for decent software development skills and some sort of awareness of common development practices.

I'm not, when I was considering going to PhD in mathematics the program director I talked to said, "if you want to build things become an engineer, if you want to model things become a physicist, if you want to prove things become a mathematician".

Well, yes, @FourierFlux's comments are largely correct, namely, that people saying they do "applied math" are all too often merely expressing a conceit, or some sort of oppositeness to other parts of math they "don't like/understand", and use this as a label. But some good applied math people really do things that are applicable. :)  (Stupidly, all too often, math-that-is-applied does not meet insiders' criterion to be "applied math". Ridiculous abuse of language.)

@FourierFlux Then, first, that program director was a moron. Second, that person had no overview of what mathematicians really do and only considered their own academic bubble. The vast majority of math undergraduate majors do not become professors, but end up in careers outside academia that are fulfilling and appreciated by their employers; they do not prove theorems there, by and large, but are valued members of teams that model, build, test, analyze, etc. It's silly to suggest that "mathematicians prove theorems". It's a disservice to the profession to claim that that's what they do.

I personally found that an undergrad math degree was basically useless by itself, I would not recommend anyone get one as a stand alone degree.

There is much information flowing back from industry to academia as well, though maybe not enough to mathematics specifically.
Regardless, the #1 skill we know industry employers need from math graduates (PhD or undergraduate) are computer skills in general, programming skills in particular, and in the context of PDEs skills with the numerical solution of differential equations.
If you are interested in a cross section of applications of computing in industry, for example, you might be interested in taking a look at this book.

Almost by definition, no cutting-edge things are done in industry, because all too frequently the company doing the cutting-edge things is what ends up being cut.
Providing a proof of anything is almost always way overkill for industry; it takes too much time and effort for little improvement, and in the unlikely event that something they relied on turns out to be false, bankruptcy is not that bad an option.  (Everyone still gets to keep what they were already paid as salary.)
Unfortunately, the few exceptions tend to involve blowing up people.

This answer has no relationship to the question, but it's also bizarrely uninformed and wrong in claiming "Almost by definition, no cutting-edge things are done in industry". The light bulb, the telephone, the microchip were all invented by companies, to give just a very very short list. I would suggest to also read up on the history of Bell Labs, for a much longer one.

Any CEO that tried to start a Bell Labs at their company nowadays would be instantly fired by their shareholders - basic research is that clearly a bad return on investment.  Things were different when companies had the monopoly power to make lots of money on their own big innovations.

Have you looked at the research budgets of companies like Intel? Or the ones that build the machines that are used to fabricate computer chips?

Almost all of what Intel calls "research spending" is something I would call "development spending".


text:
Paper got rejected and meanwhile a similar paper was submitted to another journal
I have been working for 1-2 years on a manuscript to be submitted to a journal with a relatively high impact factor. The journal has pretty strict rules about the length of the paper which is partially the reason why it took so long. The specific field itself is relatively small and people know each other's work. I am aware of groups working with comparable methods, but not on the specific problem I worked on.
The response to the submission was "Resubmit", which I did 2 months later. The final decision for the resubmitted paper was "Reject" which of course is not a pleasant response but I can live with that, given the high impact factor and tough guidelines.
Some weeks later I noticed that a paper was submitted and accepted two months after my first submission by someone else to a lower IF Journal on this very same topic. While of course it can happen that two groups work on the same topic independently at the same time, this paper showed some red flags to me:

The title is a shorter version of the title of my manuscript, with the exact same wording just in different order
The overall goal of the work and conclusion is the same
The used methods are similar
Results are included that were specifically requested by the reviewers from my first submission
The time of submission. It was 2 months after my first submission and I do not think it is impossible to produce it during this timespan.

I now feel that I cannot simply submit my paper to another journal due to lack of novelty. My professor advised me to cite this paper and highlight the differences (there aren't many) and include additional results.
Should I inform the journal where I submitted about this or would you let this matter be without commenting about it?

and I do not think it is impossible - Did you mean possible?

"Should I inform the journal where I submitted about this or would you let this matter be without commenting about it?" I think it could be reasonable to describe the facts to the editor-in-chief and inquire if there is overlap between the authors of the paper with reviewers of your paper. This wouldn't be the first case of a paper being stolen this way.

Do you have a preprint with time stamp? In any case, it is a good idea to signal to the editors that you are aware of a potential "lifting" - the editors know the reviewers and will be able to identify whether there is the possibility of some unethical appropriation of ideas and results; hopefully, the editors are  impartial.

"Do you have a preprint with time stamp?" No, I don't. This definitely is a lesson for me why a pre-print makes sense though.

@PhilE You still should try to contact the editors. If you are lucky and they are not overly tied to the authors, they might do some tracing. It also helps that the paper is published in a different journal - it is in the interest of their journal to make sure that submissions to them will not be diverted by unethical reviewers to separate outlets. Roland's advice is very pertinent.

This seems a pretty clear case of getting scooped by parallel research unless there are other unmentioned facts.
If you are working in a "popular" area of research or one with a tight knit active group of researchers then this is a reasonable conclusion. The other authors had access to the same foundational papers and ideas that you do. If a lot of people are looking at those it is common for different researchers to come to the same results.
If they were just a bit quicker than you then this will happen.
I know of one case in which this occurred in two doctoral theses, submitted simultaneously. It took a year to decide that the work was independent and that both should (and did) receive their degrees.
But, for a paper, assume you just got scooped. Mine what you have for extensions and work to extend the work. If nothing else, you learned something about your area of expertise that you can build on.

I'm assuming that your results weren't available to the other authors, even if your general research direction was. If you are claiming plagiarism, you need to make it clearer. For example, if you have an earlier pre-print of your article already visible, then you have an issue to raise with the second journal, who should be vigilant about such things.
Note that the different standards of the journals doesn't seem to be a factor here, since the other paper was submitted soon after yours.


text:
May a postdoc propose, design, and lecture his graduate-level course?
I'll be starting a postdoc position in a Canadian institute soon. However, I could not secure any independent lectureship in the course of my contract interval (but just a limited joint lectureship with my PI which is 3 sessions of a 17-session lecture). Since teaching seems like a gap in my resume, I am wondering whether or not it is possible to propose a graduate-level course like "Special Topics in Robotics: X" to the department I am affiliated with, so that, should they accept it, I can present my own course. So, if such a request is reasonable and already heard of,
1- What does a course proposal look like? It would be nice if one can share samples or any resources related to that.
2- My contract is one year. Thus, are north-American departments generally agile enough in processing these proposals so that if I submit my proposal in this fall semester, I can lecture it in the upcoming spring one?

Warning: don't fall behind in your research by turning your 1-year full-time research contract into half-teaching / half-research. Just be careful.

While details will of course depend on the institution, I have seen exactly this done for exactly this reason in a US institution.
Any large research university always has lots of special seminar sessions and special lecture series and such going on. The boundary between "extracurricular research club" and "minimal credit seminar" is often not too large. If you've got a supportive professor, they will likely be able to help you navigate departmental processes.
The other key challenge, however, will be advertising well enough to attract a sufficient number of students to allow the course to run. Typically, there is some minimum number of registrants you need to have, and if you can't get that many students registered the course will be cancelled and you will not get to teach it after all.

That depends on the department. I would just ask. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable request. So asking should be perfectly fine. If anything, it shows that you are proactive in making this postdoc a success for you and the department. There isn't much more we can add.
Since you seem somewhat unsure, it might be a good idea to do a partial course first with an experienced educator followed by your own course.

Most graduate program have special topics courses the contents of which are to be defined by the instructor.
The hard part is to convince the graduate chair that you have material for an entire course at that level, and that you are fit to teach it.
In addition, you will need to clear this with whomever is paying you unless your appointment explicitly states that you are allowed this:  I doubt your nominal boss or bosses will be thrilled to learn you will devote a significant fraction of your time to teach/develop a course rather than work on the project you were hired to complete.
Finally, I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve.  Teaching a course for the first time is very time consuming, and this will certainly affect your research productivity.  Moreover, this isn’t some 1st year course with some canonical textbook we’re talking about, so expect to spend quite a bit of time on this and not much on your research.

According to my contract, I am authorized to teach a 3-credit course per semester.


text:
What are the pros and cons of different research career paths?
As a student thinking about a career in research, more precisely pure or fundamental research, I would like to know more about possible careers. I haven't decided on the field yet, so I'm interested in as many fields as possible.
First of all, academia seems to be the most obvious path. But I don't really like the idea that you have to have other responsibilities besides research. So the question is how much time do other responsibilities take, such as writing grants, teaching, etc., and are there no academic positions where you focus entirely on research?
The next option would be industry. But the question here is: is it possible to do basic research in the industry? and if so, wouldn't this be a better option, given that it relieves you of other responsibilities and you can focus on research? (I know it depends a lot on the field)
Other paths I would also like to hear about: maybe both academia and industry would be an option or research institutes and institutes for advanced studies or starting your own research company. Any other suggestions are welcome. Thanks.

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer.

"... other responsibilities besides research" -- please be reminded that universities exist to teach.  In most universities, teaching pays your salary.  Research is something you do on the 'side'.  If you do not have students, you do not have a job, meaning no research!

And national labs fit where?

Sorry, but you seem too unfocused to have any real answer make sense to you. The main benefit of a life of research is the internal satisfaction you get from discovering the unknown. But the techniques that you need to use to get there differ so radically that a general answer is probably impossible. What a mathematician does to discover truth and what, say, Kurt Vonnegut did are totally unlike one another.
Pure research in terms of just pushing back the shadows of the unknown is pretty rare and has always been. Charles Darwin was able to manage it without really being employed at all. It wasn't obvious what Albert Einstein was actually qualified for, so he spent a number of years in the Patent Office and did much of his deep thinking there, IIRC.
University research is seldom "just" research until the late stages of your career, say, after 50 years old, when you can be funded by grants and you have a track record that keeps the grants flowing. Industrial research, these days, almost always has a product focus. You need to contribute to the bottom line. The exceptions exist, but they are rare, and you need to get very well established before you become the exception.
The rewards don't involve money, and the money can be fairly meager compared to, say, law or economics. And the cons can involve never really being "done" - always thinking about the problem(s) at hand.
I'd suggest that you wait for a while and study quite a lot of things until you find something that grabs you and won't let go. Then you can ask a question like this and get a meaningful answer for yourself. There is a saying that "You don't choose mathematics (for a career). Mathematics chooses you." It is pretty similar in other fields. You will really only be successful in research if you are driven to it and don't give yourself other options. That way the setbacks that are inevitable when staring into the unknown void won't deter you.

Academia certainly has some "research only" positions that do not have any teaching component; however, academic research positions of this kind will almost always entail applying for grants (unless you already have a large and long-lasting grant that makes this moot).  In fact, the more focused a position is on research, the more pressure there will be to apply for and secure grant funding.  Like any job, even in a " research only" academic position, you are going to have to do some other small administrative jobs, depending on your academic level.
The main difference between research in academia and industry is that in the former you have much broader discretion on choosing your own projects and deciding on the direction of your research.  Industry also has some pure research positions, but by their very nature, they are usually focused on researching particular problems that are of commercial value to the firms funding the research.  Another difference is that industry research positions often do not come with an expectation of applying for external funding.  In either case, even a job that is nominally "research only" will usually involve some small administrative burden.
In summary, it is possible to do "fundamental research" in both academia and industry, and there are some differences, but both will involve doing some tasks beyond your research.  I can understand the ideal of wanting to be left alone to pursue your research, without other tasks impeding this, but it is rare to be put in this ideal position.


text:
Outdoor skills as ticket to the archaeology PhD?
I have an office job that should provide me solid financial base for early pensioning. I've lately developed passion for outdoor activities (mountaineering, diving etc.) when it was too late to adapt the professional career path.
I wonder if it's a viable way to use the opportunity to use the outdoor experience in the archaeology research (or maybe some other discipline where outdoor skills are strongly required) and start PhD in my late (or maybe early) 50s.
I know it's not too old to start PhD, but I don't want to simply make it for hobby and feel like a tween being 60 (I'm aware I'm about to take place of someone younger) but to use it with the profit for both me and the community. I'd like to be able to help in research and share my experience with younger.
Is it plausible at all? And do the various outdoor skills are strong points for PhD entry that would counter my age and missing routine in the academics?
I have the Master in the social sciences, so I have a formal basis to apply.

Do you need to be employed? Seems to me that participating in and contributing to archaeological digs and their analysis does not require a PhD, just time to volunteer. (Source: grandfather who worked a number of local projects in his retirement. His profession was as a mining engineer, so he had some technical insight but also had time.)

@JonCuster it's also an interesting perspective.

There are other disciplines besides archeology that involve fieldwork and specialized skills (mountaineering, scuba diving, etc.)  One project that I was involved in (doing data analysis) involved graduate students collecting rock samples at 18,000 feet above sea level.  However, your outdoor skills probably won't be enough by themselves to get you into such a program.  Furthermore, I'm afraid that you might face significant age discrimination.

As an undergraduate, I studied archaeology.  I thought about pursuing graduate school and a career in the field.  I ultimately went in another direction, largely because all of the PhD archaeologists I worked with were office workers---they didn't do all that much field work; maybe a couple of weeks in the summer if they were lucky enough to be able to lead a field school.  Outdoor skills are only of incredibly minimal relevance.  A background in the four fields, a good grounding in the history and philosophy of anthropology, and some strong letters are likely more important.

Disclaimer: I’m not an archaeologist, so this is an answer written from a general perspective of an academic.
It’s certainly “plausible” for you to do a PhD if you are highly motivated and have clear goals. But you need to understand that there isn’t such a thing as a “ticket to the PhD”. The only kind of ticket is hard work, and writing a thoughtful application that convinces the people in the program that you have high potential to succeed in, and bring value to, their program.
Assuming that any particular skill or set of skills that you have will be your “ticket” in would be a serious mistake in my opinion. First, the skills that you say you have are far from uncommon, and not particularly difficult to acquire (unless we’re talking seriously technical stuff like trimix diving, which I suppose may be useful in some specialized branches of marine archaeology). Second, I’m concerned that you are more focused on the PhD involving outdoor skills and activities than on what the PhD is actually about. Imagine an archaeologist reading your personal statement where you say you want to do research in archaeology “or maybe some other discipline where outdoor skills are strongly required”. Well, you could be the world’s best outdoorsman but if you don’t show a passion for the specific discipline you are applying to, I doubt your application will rank very highly (and even if you don’t write a sentence like this one that explicitly gives away your lack of attachment to the specific discipline, it will likely show in other more subtle ways).  Besides, if you lack that kind of passion, I think you might want to reconsider the whole idea of a PhD. A PhD is hard enough to do for those who do have the passion for the topic they are working on — it is that passion that will get them through the hundreds or thousands of hours of boring grunt work, sitting in offices and seminar rooms, data analysis etc, that a PhD involves in addition to the “fun” field trips. If all you want are opportunities to do some fun science outdoors, you will likely be disappointed.
With regards to the age issue, another issue of possible concern to me is that you say “I'm aware I'm about to take place of someone younger”. This suggests to me that you potentially view yourself as unworthy of a spot in the PhD program, possibly due to your age. That’s not a helpful mindset to have. If you have the passion and think you have something unique to contribute, then you should apply. But you should not be thinking of yourself as “taking the place” of anyone — that’s another sign to me that you may lack real drive and passion for the journey that is the PhD. Your age is what it is, and gives you a perspective on life and abilities that are different from those of someone younger, for better and for worse. The people reviewing your application will surely have their own ideas about what it means and how it factors into the context of a PhD program in their area. There’s nothing you can do to eliminate this factor, but from your end I’d encourage you to at least not sabotage yourself by explicitly making age an issue where it may not be one at all.
Hope this gives you some things to think about, and good luck!

I especially agree that age is irrelevant and should not be a consideration.

I am not an archaeologist, but I know a retired professor who supervises digs. Sometimes there are gaps in academic archaeology which only passionate outsiders can fill, and those outsiders may be interested in getting volunteer help. If your primary interest is in the outdoor side of archaeology, my advice to you would be to find what sort of digs are happening in your area and ask a supervisor if they'd be willing to take you on as an assistant. This type of work is where outdoor experience would come in handy.
As part of taking this route, it is also important to learn the difference between archaeology and hobbyist metal-detecting, which is often destructive to historical sites.

It seems a bit far fetched actually, unless standing around in the heat supervising students on a dig is an "outdoor activity". I'd guess that most archaeologists spend more time in the lab, analyzing things, than in the field. And even more time trying to draw conclusions and present them.
The people who will evaluate your application will be academics, not athletes. They will be looking for other indications of success. Being active in the outdoors might be a real benefit in some fields (sport...) but would have very little weight, I'd think, in anthropology. Fieldwork is, I'd assume, more intellectually stimulating than physically.
But, I can think of one possible need that doesn't seem to be well covered. At the last global maximum (glaciers), the sea level was much lower. Perhaps 200 feet, IIRC. People almost certainly lived on the shore in many many places but their traces there have all been lost. I've wondered, personally, about the origin of boats sophisticated enough for over sea travel. Perhaps there is evidence somewhere (some how?) buried in ancient sea shore habitat. Not an obvious path to success, of course.
Just guessing, actually, as this isn't my field, though I've done a bit of reading about the first peoples of what became the Americas.
OTOH, outdoor activities are a great way to break out of a rut when stuck at a desk.

FYI, I've seen Science Magazine new section articles about the offshore archeology and Dutch dredging. I could not find any of the articles, but did find this one https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618220302275


text:
How to pick an undergraduate if you know you want to pursue an academic career? (math)
If you're certain that you want to pursue an academic career, what should you look for in an undergraduate math program? What makes an undergraduate program good for those who want to do a PhD and later conduct research, have a career in the academia? How important or reliable is the prestige a certain institution might have in this regard?

Math curricula:
Middle East Technical University,
Hacettepe University,
Ankara University,
Bilkent University

Math faculty:
Middle East Technical University,
Hacettepe University,
Ankara University,
Bilkent University

Information about FEDEK can be acquired from here.

Sorry, this isn't the sort of question we answer here. But the undergraduate institution is probably less important than you think.

Do you have an idea where I could find an answer to this question @Buffy?

There are too many variables and you are one of them. Go where you think you will get an appropriate level of academic support. The worldwide reputation means little for this. I went to a very small place (liberal arts - math) and turned out fine.

Thank you for you advice @Buffy!

¨I'll be able to go to Middle East Technical University (METU) or Bilkent University.¨: How?

[This is an opinion:] Having seen all 4 of the departments, forgot Hacettepe and Ankara uni. they teach in Turkish. METU and Bilkent both have good math departments and give good educations but the student/faculty ratio is an order of magnitude high in METU than in Bilkent. That is a high disadvantage. If you can pay for the education, definitely Bilkent. If you have no problem with money, don't even consider staying in Turkey.

@Our by studying for 10 months, to be honest. I'm sorry if the statement seems presumptuous, I was just making a guess considering I studied for two months the last time and got pretty close to getting into METU. EDIT: Thank you for your opinion though! Unfortunately, no, I don't have the money to study abroad, and couldn't get a scholarship from the 20+ universities I applied in the United States.


text:
I left academia after finishing my PhD and completing my post-docs. Is it possible to return to academia now, in a slightly different field?
I have a PhD in pure mathematics and completed a couple of postdocs in complex analysis. I left academia a year ago. Now I realise that I would be interested in returning to research, but in fundamental physics rather than math. Naturally, I would choose a research problem where my math background could be relevant.
The "usual advice" is to slowly shift my existing research toward physics. But I have not been doing research for some time now, so this isn't really an option; I would need to make a "cold start" in this new area.
Does this sort of thing happen occasionally in academia? If so, what is the path? Should I contact professors about doing projects under their supervision? Reapply to grad school? Try to publish independently?  Something else?

how do you define “fundamental physics”?   what subfield of pure mathematics are we talking about?

Fundamental physics would be the mathematics directly related to physics, it could be the study of lattice theories or of the solution of the Schrödinger equations, the foundations of QFT etc.

This question has been edited and reopened per this meta discussion.

See also this question.

With the state of the current job market, I just don’t see a plausible path forward for you to end up in an academic physics position.

Why not stay in Math and do something physics-related, such as working on the theoretical and numerical aspects of partial differential equations?  Many such equations come from physics, and your complex analysis background is quite useful for doing PDEs.

If you are near a large university, especially the one at which you earned your degree, go visit the physics department there and  try to meet a few people who might value a collaboration with a mathematician. It might take a while to make contact and get something going. It might also take suggestions about people elsewhere who might be interested.
But blind emails are much less likely to result in anything unless they are sent to someone who has somehow already expressed the need.
But, you already seem to recognize that it will be through collaborations that you meet your goal. And if you are a bit flexible about the precise sub-field it would increase your chances.

Let me add to Buffy's answer that, if you're near a university, you could attend some seminars in (or near) the area(s) you're interested in. Even if you're not physically near a university, there might be zoom seminars you could join.