text:
Should a math paper use non-alphabetical ordering of authors' names for unequal contributions?
Using alphabetical ordering for authors' names is a long established tradition in mathematics.
In the situations of extremely unequal contributions, is it reasonable to break from this tradition?  Has there been any examples?  If it is common, what is the threshold for breaking from alphabetical ordering?

I don't know how anyone would know how to interpret a non-alphabetical order in math, in any case. Most likely as a failed alphabetization...?

The only recent example that I know of is J. T. Moore, M. Hruˇs´ak and M. Dzamonja, Parametrized ♦-principles. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356 (2004) 2281–2306. My understanding is that the ordering of authors was intended to reflect unequal contributions.

Many non-math papers now have author contribution sections. Do math journals have these?

Example of a book by Katok and Hasselblatt: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/introduction-to-the-modern-theory-of-dynamical-systems/2D6CF65297378C2704A4A56D0F77B503

Edit: this answer is about pure math.
It’s not common. In 25 years of reading math papers I‘ve only ever seen one example of a paper that had a nonalphabetical author ordering. It was an English translation of a Russian paper from the 1970s written by a PhD student and his advisor. I don’t know what the story was behind this unconventional author order, but all I know is that the advisor’s name appears first even though alphabetically he comes second.

In the situations of extremely unequal contributions, is it reasonable to break from this tradition?

No. Since you’re going against the overwhelming norm in math publishing, no one will have a clear sense of what exactly you’re trying to say. Also, consider the fact that it could be that the author order that reflects the actual author contributions might coincide with the alphabetical order (for example in the paper I mentioned, it was competely random that the PhD advisor came second alphabetically and could easily have been the other way around). In that case the signal will be lost entirely.
My conclusion is that the idea of forcing this signaling mechanism on a math publication culture that isn’t adapted to it is illogical, ineffective, and will lead to inconsistent results that are only very weakly correlated with the effect you’re trying to achieve. If I were a journal editor and I received a submission that tries to use this mechanism, I would tell the authors to find a different way to say what they want to say about the author contributions.

Out of interest, did you check if the authors in your example were still not in alphabetical order when written in the cyrillic alphabet?

"to find a different way to say what they want to say about the author contributions."  Like a statement of contribution?  That also appear to be quite rare.

@mlk I just checked. The authors were Anatoly Vershik and Sergey Kerov, and you’re right, in Russian the author order is alphabetical.

@ssquidd I didn’t have a specific way in mind. But yeah, if you want to indicate what the contributions are, then a statement explaining that seems like a logical solution.

Vershik-Okounkov was the example I knew of this cyrillic alphabetical order issue.  Strange coincidence that your example was also Vershik.

It is not actually true that in mathematics alphabetical order is a long established tradition. This is only true in pure mathematics.
In many parts of applied and computational mathematics, ordering by contribution (or other criteria) is just as widely or more widely used. Only a handful of my my 50+ papers are in alphabetical order.
My take, different from Dan Romik's, is that most professional mathematicians are well aware that there are different conventions in different parts of mathematics, and that they can well put things in perspective. That is certainly true for evaluating colleagues during annual evaluation time or when you apply for positions. If you're in a hard-core pure math area where nobody uses non-alphabetical author order, such a paper may seem odd but I am pretty sure that everyone will still be able to see what the purpose is.

This is a question and not snark. Do you find that the practice often generates bad feelings and fights as we see in many of the questions on this site? Or is it not an issue?

I advise (and practice) making author order a discussion topic very early on in a collaboration. I have only had one paper (out of more than 50) where there was disagreement, and that spurred me to make the issue a point of discussion early on. In all other cases, we agreed and it continued to seem right.

@Buffy It also helps that I very much try to be generous in letting others be first author, and emphasize this to my collaborators. It's my way of giving back to the generosity I have received early in my own career.

In the answers and comments, it's suggested that it's extremely rare in pure math, and there are only one or two such papers.  I'd suggest that while it is rare, it's not as rare as Dan Romik's answer and a couple of comment's suggest.  I myself have noticed a number of papers where the author list is non-alphabetical (and in fact I'm a co-author on one).  My impression is that the two most common reasons for these situations are:

there was some confusion about the alphabetical ordering, typically with non-English names (maybe unRomantic names is better?) as in paul garrett's comment and as seems to be the case in Dan Romik's example
the contributions to the paper were highly unbalanced among co-authors (e.g., the RSA paper---at least from A's perspective)

That said, just by seeing such a situation, it's probably not clear why the author order is non-alphabetical, and people will wonder why when they notice it.  So unless some of the authors feel strongly about it, I wouldn't recommend doing this as a matter of course, and especially not unless all authors agree.
Here are some alternative suggestions for how to handle a situation like this:

Break the project up into two (or more) different papers, using different subsets of authors to better represent author contributions.
Instead of making separate papers, have 1 paper but with appendices with different sets of authors.
Include a comment in the introduction about each author's contributions.
Be generous (or thankful, depending on which party you are), and don't worry about it.  (This is the probably the most common solution to this rather frequent situation, and unless the paper is really groundbreaking, sharing credit shouldn't be too much of a burden.)


text:
Are GRE Practice Guides Easier Than the Actual Test?
So far, I've found the verbal section in most GRE prep. materials to be ridiculously easy, but that worries me since this test is supposed to weed out grad. school applicants. Thus, I'm worried that the prep. books/guides are significantly easier than the actual test and that I won't score as well as I hoped. (I want to score in the top 10th percentile on the verbal section.) Conversely, some of the math problems are more challenging, which probably means I'll do awful on that section. (For reference, I'm in a humanities field which does not involve any math.)
So I wanted to ask if the study guide's material is comparable (in difficulty) to the test material?

Assuming you are referring to the GRE General test: It would depend on what materials you are referring to, but the popular ones, particularly those from ETS, closely match the difficulty level of the actual test. However, note that:

To get a more accurate impression of difficulty, try to mimic test conditions as closely as possible (e.g., practice online tests if you are giving the computer-delivered test). Even if the questions seem easy, time could be an important factor, and familiarity with the interface helps. ETS offers two free online practice tests that use the actual test user interface.
The difficulty level is adaptive based on the section. So, if you perform well in one section, you can expect more difficult questions in the next, and vice-versa. However, the scoring is weighted based on section level difficulty, so ideally this should not adversely affect the final score.

I don't think the practice tests are adaptive in nature, are they?

@Jihadi Good point, I don't think so, but I am not sure.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the implications when a student takes a conflict to the chair?
Does writing to a Department Chair always have to result in a grievance and/or official investigation, or does the Chair ever help the parties work things out?
I had originally posed this question with student-faculty conflicts in mind, but I guess it could apply to faculty-faculty or student-student conflicts as well.

If your emotional state is a problem for you, speak to a mental health professional.  Chairs are not mental health professionals, councillors, or mediators (unless they happen to have those skills because that's what they teach).

I think that this could be a good question - what is the role of the department chair in relation to student-faculty member conflicts? What are the implications when a student takes a conflict to the chair?

Echoing @Dawn's comment: students in general have no idea how all these procedures work at their university (and, hopefully, never have to find out), and faculty often have no idea, either... so some facts, even if only local, would be illuminating to many. Showing the range of possibilities, and giving advice on how to find one's own local information would be very useful.

I was a department chair, and your question doesn’t really make sense from my point of view. A department chair gets hundreds of emails every week, and on average approximately zero of them result in a grievance or an official investigation. Of course, most of them don’t involve a conflict between a student and a professor. But that’s certainly something that happens once in a while. Chairs get emails complaining about all sorts of things. Some of those complaints are trivial or petty, others are more serious. The chair will typically make at least a small effort to find the facts and reply to the email, or refer the complaint to someone else for more thorough handling.
I understand you’re trying to understand if your chair’s behavior was atypical. But your question as it currently stands is unanswerable, except in the trivial (and unhelpful) sense that the answer is “no, not all emails to a department chair result in a grievance”. Not all emails are created equal, and it’s possible that given the specific nature of your complaint and your institution’s policies, your chair’s response would have been completely normal and appropriate.
As for helping the parties resolve the conflict, yes, sometimes that might happen in a limited way, but a department chair is not a therapist or arbitrator, and usually is much too busy to spend an extended amount of time on helping people get along who aren’t getting along. If you want to succeed in academia or a similar professional environment, I recommend that you adopt the mindset that it’s your job to manage conflict with other people on your own, rather than expecting that a department chair or other figure of authority will come to your rescue when things go south. Because as a general rule, such an expectation would be highly unrealistic.

At my university, official grievances must be handled in a seriously cumbersome way. I think the same is true of most other universities. So a department chair is strongly motivated to try to mediate or otherwise solve such problems before they reach the level of official grievances.
I've never had the misfortune of chairing my department*, but I've served in several associate chair posts. (We have four associate chair positions, and I've held three of them.) In one, my duties included handling student complaints about faculty teaching. None of those complaints became formal grievances, and I think none resulted in any comments in the instructor's file, but I certainly did have serious discussions with some "culprits", and I believe this was sufficient to solve the problems.

To be precise, on two occasions, when the chair was away at a conference, I was appointed "acting chair" for a week or so, to deal with any issues that couldn't be handled by the staff and couldn't wait for the chair's return. Fortunately, there were no such issues.

In my case the chair made no effort to mediate or resolve the issue, and instead jumped right to an official grievance (i.e. meeting with the dean etc.).  I've been struggling with the guilt for a year already and have relentlessly tried to have the complaint dismissed. I wasn't sure if all letters to the chair get handled in this matter or if his behavior was atypical (which it seems to be).

@Gemini I have a feeling that the chair took immediate official notice of your letter because of how it was worded and/or because of past history or knowledge. That is, it was considered more serious like threatening to sue or stating there's harassment versus "I don't think my work was graded correctly."

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


text:
How to politely turn down an on-site faculty interview offer
I have decided to accept a tenure-track assistant professor offer. But at this moment, I still have a virtual on-campus interview with a different university. It is now the time to inform the university that I won't be able to participate in the interview. Three days ago when I was still waiting for a pending offer, I told them that I would attend the interview. I want to seek some suggestions about turning down the interview invite in a professional manner.

Time is of the essence.  For your future relations with this other university, letting them know promptly is much more important than getting the phrasing just right,

Thanks! I will do that in a moment.

What does virtual on-campus mean?  That seems like a contradiction.

I might just add that when you say you have decided to accept a tenure-track assistant professor offer just make sure you have that offer signed by all parties (ie all locked in). It is likely rare but I have definitely heard stories of verbally accepted offers being retracted at the last moment and in the unlikely circumstance of that happening you may regret turning down the interview invite.

@DeanMacGregor Because saying "remote interview replacing the on campus portion of our normal interview process due to quarantine" is too long. I've had "virtual in-person" interviews outside of academia, so it seems like this is becoming a thing.

Dear [name of person you were communicating with],
I have an update about my job search. Since we last talked I‘ve received a tenure track job offer from another institution, and have accepted it. Consequently, I am withdrawing my application at your department, and am cancelling my upcoming interview with you and your colleagues.
I do very much appreciate that you considered me for the position, and hope that we will have occasion to meet in the future.
Sincerely,
[your name]

P.S. Congrats on the job!!!

+1 for giving a very valid and understandable reason for cancelling.

"Since we last talked"...should be "spoke" or "communicated".  Perhaps "since our last correspondence".

@DeanMacGregor Why?

@AzorAhai To be honest until you asked I couldn't say why, it's just how I was taught.  I did some googling and the best thing I can find is that "spoke" is more formal than "talk".  That was just a quora answer otherwise I'd link it.

@DeanMacGregor "Talked" is perfectly cromulent in my dialect/fields. "Communicated" or "since our last correspondence" sounds overly formal, but that may vary by locale.


text:
Can RUI grants be transferred to research universities?
Suppose a NSF RUI (research at undergraduate institute) proposal is funded. Can the funding be transferred to a research university if the PI move to that university?

I strongly suggest asking the program director. My experience has been that the NSF is happy with grant modifications as long as the money is spent for the intended research, but my experience does not include RUI grants. There may be rules that require RUI money to be spent only at undergraduate institutions.

I'll second the recommendation to ask the program director.  Some NSF grants have specific restrictions on which institutions can receive the grants (e.g. EPSCOR grants can only go to EPSCOR states) and you can't violate those restrictions while transferring the grant to another institution (e.g. a PI that I know was not allowed to take her EPSCOR grant to a new job in a non-EPSCOR state.)  I expect that you'd encounter the same problem with trying to transfer an RUI grant to a research university that wouldn't have been eligible for the grant in the first place.

No, if your NSF grant is funded as an RUI, then it cannot be moved to another university that is not designated as an PUI.
I wish I had a source on this to link for you, but all I can say is that I was told this last year by an NSF program director regarding pros and cons of applying this way. My understanding is, if you have your grant considered as a RUI, there are a few differences from applying normally:

You get to write an "Impact Statement" that does not count against your normal page limit;
(at least some of) the reviewers they choose will be from undergraduate serving universities;
the reviewers get a "special note" informing them of the circumstances of RUI;
there is (maybe?) a special pool of money that can be used to fund some of these (it looks like this is not exactly true, it is not a separate pool; it may vary by program, but sometimes some money is set aside to specifically fund these).

Because you get these special considerations that you would not have at a research university, you (most likely) won't be allowed to transfer this award to a non-You should double check this by emailing your NSF program director to ask.
If you are planning to change to a research university (or try to), you have to consider: If you win an NSF award, it improves your CV and therefore your chances of getting a position, probably regardless of if your award can transfer (though possibly being able to transfer will increase this chance further). So it could be worthwhile to write one considered as an RUI, and just be prepared to leave it behind if you have this opportunity. Or if you feel your application is particularly strong without the extra considerations offered by RUI, you can shoot for the moon and hope for a grant you can take with you.

For a source, have you looked at the NSF page for RUI grants? https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappg19_1/pappg_7.jsp#VIIB2f

Sometimes the funding can be moved. Specifically, both university need to approve the transfer.  The official program details note:

(i) Policy. When a PI/PD plans to leave an organization during the course of a grant, the organization has the prerogative to nominate a substitute PI/PD or request that the grant be terminated and closed out. In those cases where the PI/PD's original and new organizations agree, NSF will facilitate a transfer of the grant and the assignment of remaining unobligated funds to the PI/PD's new organization. This should normally be done with a tripartite agreement (involving NSF, the PI/PD’s original organization and new organization), or by a subaward arrangement between the PI/PD's original and new organizations, subject to NSF's consent. (See Chapter VII.B.3)

There are other details on the NSF webpage as well. I would encourage you to read that page if you have an RUI grant and this situation applies to you.


text:
Path to AI research from math undergrad, no CS background?
Suppose someone has a math bachelors with a developing interest in AI research but has not taken a single computer science course.
Is it advisable to "start over" and try to be admitted to a masters program in computer science, perhaps by taking prerequisite courses as a non degree student somewhere?
Or is it possible to approach the field from the perspective of statistics, getting an MS in Data Science or Statistics and self-teaching programming and CS along the way, before applying to a CS PhD?
In other words, is there really any AI or machine learning research being done in most statistics departments?

In the field of AI, there are many mathematicians.  For example, they may focus on the theoretical aspects of AI algorithms, e.g., non-convex optimization.  Knowing how to program is a definite requirement, but I do not believe you need an entire degree for that.

And certainly not a masters.

I am an assistant professor in data mining. My best students are always the ones with a strong background in mathematics. The mathematicians will acquire the necessary computer science skills along the way. The computer scientists will have bigger trouble getting up to speed with the required mathematics skills.
If you have a mathematics BSc degree, and you want to get into DM/ML/AI research, consider choosing an MSc/PhD programme where you can combine your interests. Maybe go for a double degree. Whatever you do, do not view your background in math as a drawback. You are in pole position w.r.t. CS students.

I've heard this a lot but still don't quite understand why CS students are typically bad at math.

@Bajie It's not that they're bad per se. It's more that too many of them do not take the effort to become really good in math. Too many CS students come to the university to just learn to program some cool stuff, and too many of them only belatedly realize that (for example) in order to program a good game, you need graphics, and in order to program a good raytracer, you need linear algebra. Some CS students will tackle the challenge head-on, and those are the students you want. But others will not understand why they need to know so much math, and they'll fight having to learn.


text:
How do I determine if a PhD is financially feasible for me?
Pursuing an academic career involves risk, including financial risk. My question is: what factors should one consider when deciding whether these financial risks are worth it in one's personal situation?
As an example, consider my situation:

I am 38, have a liberal arts degree, and am considering a master's degree in a humanities field.
I have some undergraduate student debt and no financial safety net or retirement savings
I currently live with and am primarily supported by my mother, and I have no children/dependents.
I am not open to relocating

Some thoughts:

Most graduate assistantships pay poverty level wages. As long as I continue living at home, it's okay, provided that my mother remains in decent health. However, I would not be able to support myself on that wage if I had to. Alternatively, I could forgo funding and take out more loans for my graduate education, but that would leave me with exorbitant debt.
I would be entering the job market around my late 40s, possibly early 50. Tenure track positions straight out of grad. school are rare, and many newly-minted PhDs end up with part-time adjunct positions or post-docs, neither offering financial security.
Tenure track positions (particularly in the humanities) are scarce, and there's a chance I could never achieve tenure, even if I completed a PhD.
I'm passionate about this area of research and can't think of anything else I would like to do.
Perhaps "odds of success" are something that should be considered, but this is hard to measure at such an early stage in my career.

There were similar wuestions in the past: What are the academic career prospects for someone in their late 30's starting a PhD?

You do only have one life, at least as far as is easily discerned. Don't spend toooooo much of it doing things you don't want to do, deferring things you do. You may not get another chance, etc.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/149425/does-it-have-any-value-getting-a-phd-in-engineering-after-45 - I had read your question over on Workplace.SE and planned to comment there, originally.

@BernhardDöbler-The OP of that post was studying engineering, which isn't comparable to the humanities. There are fewer  humanities job prospects in academia, lower starting salaries, and virtually nothing to fall back on in industry if academia doesn't pan out. So my situation is riskier than theirs.

Do you understand why you have not been able to keep a job or build a career?

Also, do you expect to need to support your mother financially in the future?

Many of the responses to this question (not just the comments here) have are casting doubt on whether the OP is really as "passionate" about research as they claim to be. I think that line of reasoning is in bad faith. While it's difficult to discern the OP's "true" motivation from reading their question, we shouldn't demand an overture to the joys of research as proof of their interest. Treat the OP's passion as a given.

@Max It is not just doubt, but being able to discuss and demonstrate it. Passion may not translate to ability and competency though, that is the worry.  Yes, it may be learnt in the PhD process, but the question focuses on the contradiction of finances. So the focus on the demonstration of that passion has become the point of contention, being able to articulate that passion is probably what most of the comments and answers are concerned about...

The question isn't about whether the passion translates. The OP asked, "Is an academic career financially feasible for me?" not "Does this question convince you that I possess an academic's thirst for knowledge?" Yes, OP will later have to demonstrate research interest to target employers, but the demo won't take place via SE posts!

From reading the OPs comments, however, I do wonder if they are comfortable with the possibility that being an academic in the humanities may very well *not" be possible, if you want the level of job choice and security described. There are safe careers out there, but academia isn't one of them.

@Max- I didn't mean that I wanted a career that was 100% "secure."  I meant that compared to my last career (100% commission sales, independently employed), academia offers a degree of security that is balanced with a level of independence/autonomy that you don't have in most traditional jobs. Most people, for instance, can't choose their schedule or which projects they're going to work on etc.

@Poidah- how accomplished were you straight out of your undergrad. education, (beyond   GPA, test scores etc., since, according to you, these measures aren't sufficient to demonstrate competency)? Even if you have exceptional accomplishments, most undergrads do not. Things like publications and presentations etc. typically begin in graduate school. Yes, they sometimes happen in undergrad. but it's uncommon, though it may also depend on the field.

Let's continue in chat: https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/109327/discussion-on-question

"I'm passionate about this area of research, ..." Especially in the humanities, where one doesn't need a lab or equipment, it's worth keeping in mind that one can pursue these sorts of intellectual pursuits in one's free time, while maintaining a non-academic job. University libraries often have ways to give access to the public (and librarians are very willing to help). Finally, most non-academics vastly overestimate the time that professors are able to spend on "pure" study. Obviously, being an academic makes research easier, but it's not all-or-nothing.

As a minor note, it is generally not the case in the humanities that one must do a post-doc or similar before getting a tenure-track position. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that it's the exception rather than the rule. Of course, one may instead be unable to find a tenure-track position right out of grad school and do non-tenure-track teaching-only positions instead, perhaps never finding a TT position. It is especially important to consider whether you would enjoy a career focused on teaching rather than research.

It's been a year. Any update @Gemini?

Let’s consider the situation from another angle: the chances are that after x years of study, you will end up as an adjunct teacher without a good contract. Would you consider this as an improvement from your situation? Based on your self assessment and considering your age: what are your chances that you will be an exceptionally well regarded scholar who ends up on a well payed tenure, with lower than average teaching and service load?

Based on your description, getting a Masters degree is not a good idea. Several reasons:

You can't be sure your mother will remain healthy.
You currently have no savings, and you're already 38. There's not much time left to build up a retirement fund - and as you point out, academia does not pay well.
You already have student loans to pay for.
Getting a job in academia is hard. "There's a chance I could never achieve tenure" is a very calm way to put things; the real odds of you never achieving tenure is probably in the vicinity of 80% in the humanities.

Let's take the rosiest result that you could possibly get by pursuing an academic career. Your mother remains healthy. You are able to fully fund your studies, without incurring extra debt. Your current debt is paused until you finish studying, after which the interest rate is 4%. You finish in 6 years. After graduating you immediately land a tenured professorship paying $60k a year, from which you are able to save $30k a year. You use the savings to first pay down the debt, then invest all of it into the S&P 500, which returns 10% a year (this itself is risky, since you need to save some money for a rainy day, but we are considering the rosiest possible result).

Six years from now: you are 44 years old, net worth -$25,000.
Seven years from now: you are 45 years old, net worth $4,000.
Twenty two years from now: you are 60 years old, net worth $1,065,200.89.

If we further assume that $1 million is enough to retire on in 22 years' time (itself a shaky assumption), then in the rosiest scenario, you are just barely across the finish line.
You could make the model more complicated of course. Perhaps your $60k/year salary will also increase at the rate of inflation (although if taking inflation into account, your expenses would also increase), perhaps you are willing to delay retirement to 65, etc. But the margin of safety you have is tight, even in the rosiest possible scenario. What if your mother falls sick? What if the stock market crashes right as she does? What if you are involved in a car accident and need surgery? What if you can't live on $30k a year (note you have to pay taxes out of this number; further, even if you can, what about your spouse/children)? What if you can't land a tenured position?
tl; dr: don't do it.
Edit: in the more general case, one would modify the model above to take on more realistic assumptions. For example you could say that immediately after graduating, you do a postdoc that only pays $40k a year for 6 years, during which you save $20k a year, before landing a tenured position. This changes your net worth in 8 years' time to $13,760, your net worth in 12 years' time to $122,248.02, and your net worth in 22 years' time to $843,014.89.
Perhaps you decide that when you become a professor, you'll buy your own house for $100k. This further modifies the calculation above to make your net worth in 12 years' time $22,248.02, and your net worth in 22 years' time will be $583,640.65 (+ however much the house is worth).
If you then decide that you will work longer before retiring, your net worth in 27 years' time will be $1,141,427.40. In fact, if you play around with the calculator, you'll find that time really is money. 10% more time beats earning 10% more salary! That's why 23-year olds can follow their hearts while older people must be more conservative if they want to retire comfortably.
You ask further about how to model probability of success in becoming a professor. To do this, search up an alternative career option (preferably several) for people with your intended degree. Next, use your local jobs portal to look for jobs for people with that degree. Finally, check salary websites for how much these jobs earn. Now instead of the $60k/year salary assumed in the calculations above, you put in whatever your new salary is, and rerun the calculations. Remember there's an ~80% chance you never become a tenured professor, so a plan B is important.
If after running all the calculations with realistic assumptions, you find that you can reach the finish line with room to spare (how much margin of safety depends on your risk appetite, but you can always make more pessimistic assumptions and see if you still get there), then a PhD is financially feasible.

I would say "Don't do it unless you have  a really solid plan B.", a plan for what to do if any of the favorable assumptions does not come true.

Humanities is specifically high risk unfortunately Gemini, so the simple answer is yes, the financial risk is disappointing massive, no matter the yearning. Allure's point about your mother's health raises another important issue, one of mobility and flexibility. In a very scarce and competitive academic environment, extreme flexibility and mobility tends to be the number in order to capitalise the rare opportunities which pop up all over the world. Those opportunities tend to be important building blocks to increase your chances of tenure, something which would likely be very difficult with an unwell parent understandably.
I am gonna be voted down but sorry Gemini, your question is framed as a financial risk question, but you then you minimised the issue of money later on in the piece too. If you are financially secure, it is much easier to establish a career compared to struggling with student loans. However, the inner contradictions in your piece echos the lack of detail around your previous work history or career development. Success in finances can be different from success in academia, and vice versa. Most of the time skills from one can help the other.
My worry is that you may have an idealistic impression of academia and its more secure lifestyle, which may not reflect the tough financial realities, especially in the humanities. Its highly contested and arduous inner workings is usually very invisible the public and most students. So I agree with Buffy, despite the passing mention of "passion and interest", there needs to be more focus on demonstrating that passion and interest. Focus on developing those skills now which can only support your academic endeavours.
So if you can't imagine another career other than academia, then the focus of your work and attention needs to be to broaden those opportunities rather than the Masters and PhD only. Just about every academic have blogged, written, spoke, run a consultancy or developed their opportunities in other ways, rather than in the usual academic journal article/conference sense? The humanities can demand much much more unfortunately, as it has I would argue smaller areas of international and public interest, making it much harder to carve out an academic career.
Everyone here seem very genuine and keen for you to succeed, but I think there is a serious concern that the path is only going to get tougher for you rather than easier.

-1 age bias......

Yes, I apologise, age bias seems to be emphasised, But to me age is not the issue, it is the lack of discussion and minimisation of previous history and achievements that only increases the financial risk and academic viability discussion unfortunately. Hopefully I have toned down that distracting emphasis and allowed for a more constructive focus on the issues.

@Podiah- If this post was made by a 23 or 24 year old a year out of undergrad, would you have the same concerns about their  "work history" and "achievement" (in terms of it affecting their academic prospects)?

I also don't think work history is predictive of academic ability/performance. There are people with excellent work histories that aren't intellectually curious and/or didn't perform well in college (maybe didn't attend). Conversely, some, like myself, have horrible work histories yet succeeded in college. A lot of it come down to how motivated you are in a particular environment.

@Gemini This may be true, but you need to figure out how you will address it. We ask faculty interviewees how they can use pre-PhD job experience to help advise students and help them network to get jobs post-graduation.

Work history and extra curriculars are relevant to a 23 year old too unfortunately

Okay, fair enough. Even then, however, I don't think performance in one area necessarily correlates with performance in another. If a student (of any age) is academically qualified for graduate studies (sufficient GPA, test scores, excellent statement of purpose etc.), I don't think a lack of work history or extra cirricular activities should count against them. (Neither demonstrate the student will be a good researcher.)

The problem is that you may be competing with people with work history and a solid outside experience that may demonstrate effective research competencies and skills.

@Gemini: Reasonably paid academic positions in the Humanities are notoriously scarce.  Usually such scarcity means that you need to have an exceptionally strong resume to stand out; presumably a solid history would be necessary (but not sufficient).

A solid academic history is usually only one piece of the puzzle unfortunately, hence the persistent focus and worry about your work history. Even commission work can be relevant and demonstrate skills that you may not appreciate. There are quite relevant skills in sales and many other roles that does not seem relevant on first glance.

I know in the humanities things are different, but in my field work history is definitely taken into account when evaluating candidates for PhD admissions. For folks who come straight from undergrad or undergrad+masters, GPA is their main signal; for us who come in a little later, GPA is less relevant and what we have done during this time is. Again, this varies by field (and by school).

I would recommend you check out the salaries of humanities faculty at your local state university to see the expected salaries for those who actually land jobs. (Usually available with some clever googling via a newspaper website.) Then try to look at the website of your relevant professional association to see the percentage of PhD graduates who land those types of jobs.
Overall, jobs in the humanities are rare and not well paid. If you are not able to move, you are very unlikely to get a job beyond an adjunct position, which is typically paid below minimum wage.
One additional consideration: individual departments will have different probabilities of placing students in full-time academic (tenure-track) jobs. It would be helpful to look at the recent placement rate of students at your target institution (since you don’t want to move). These may range from 5% in TT roles to 50% at the most elite departments— the department-level variation is very important.

http://data.chronicle.com/

Yes, this is useful, but also the state school information is available for individual faculty. You want to make sure some strange outliers are not inflating salaries.

Willingness to move does seem to be an essential consideration. It's tough sledding for a humanities PhD in general, but if you're geographically confined your odds are drastically diminished.

Faculty salaries at many US public universities (like mine) are public record, accessible over the web, either separately or as part of a broader state-employee database.  For example: California, New York, and Illinois.

It's tricky to answer this question because you did not clearly state what your actual goal is.
If your goal is to become a tenured professor in the humanities, the truth is that this is an implausible goal for almost everyone.  There are very many qualified people and very few universities hiring.  There is no reason to think the underlying economic causes of the situation will ever change for the better.
If your goal is to get a PhD, this is something that most people can achieve if they work hard on it for a long time.  If you do it, expect short-term financial disadvantage.
If your goal is to have an "academic career" by being an expert in a field of the humanities and publishing frequently, you can achieve that.  But do not expect to earn any money at all from it.  Have another job.

I think academia offers the perfect balance of autonomy and job security (if you're able to get tenure).

The job security part is a myth.  There are no jobs that are secure.  Having tenure provides no protection if your university is unable to pay you.  It is more secure than many other kinds of employment, but it is not secure.

"If your goal is to get a PhD, this is something that most people can achieve if they work hard on it for a long time."   Most people can get a PhD?

@ssquidd Yes, that is what I said.  Can does not imply that they should choose to, or that they "deserve" to.  The PhD degree does not magically separate good people from bad people.

I think it depends on your backup plan.
As others have pointed out, there is a very high risk that your first choice will not work. You need some other way of supporting yourself, possibly supporting your mother if she needs your help, meeting financial obligations such as repaying student debt, and providing for your retirement through some combination of savings and social security history.
It is difficult to see a backup plan that would instantly get you enough income. Most careers have an initial low earning period. It sounds as though your bachelor's degree is not one that opens up a lot of opportunities immediately, so you may need to get e.g. some certificates before you can start earning much. You need to get past any training, probation, or low earning for inexperience as soon as possible so that you can quickly use the backup plan to earn enough if necessary.
Ideally, you would pursue the master's degree studies and implementing your backup plan in parallel. I have known several people who have completed a master's degree while holding a full time job. If that is not possible in your situation you cannot afford, from where you are now, to start the master's degree immediately. You need to work the backup plan first, if you have to choose.

I do not know, if it is feasible in your field. I do not know, if it is feasible in your country. I also do not know, if you are willing to do it.
Industry, for a while
I have seen such careers multiple times, in Germany, around computer science. You should have a PhD (which is a separate problem tackled below). Basically, people in the management of larger companies are quite well accepted as professors, especially at FHs (the English term is "University of applied sciences", a typical one educates engineers).
So, a PhD and about 10 years at Rolls Royce would probably boost your chances for a tenure – provided you'd still want it then. Also, it's more attractive financially.
PhD, in the industry
Again, in Germany, there is also a chance to get a PhD in the industry. Either with a collaboration project or with a topic interesting to a company or with company's funding at the university.
They are sometimes officially hiring PhD candidates, but the topics are mostly very special and you don't get to choose one. (Again, choosing one's topic completely freely in the academia might not be best for a academic career. Your advisor would probably know better. But I digress.)
Summary
It might be doable, but please consider all the issues in your life and the future outcomes. The benefit of my suggestion is that you'd still have a good paying job, even if getting a professorship fails.

The OP plans to study "humanities".  It does not sounds like this answer is relevant.

Even Rolls Royce needs a PR report writer, a contributor for an internal magazine, or someone who creates names for new products. Yes, it would be harder, but it might still work. Imagine OP in 10 years being an editor in chief of a major newspaper. My argument still holds.

In what way experience as a PR report writer help to land a professor position?  This answer may be a good answer for STEM fields, but does not fit OP's question.

Okay, okay, I tried to generalize from computer science and this generalization might not work in humanities. Not that I would know, what works there.


text:
Would it annoy a professor if a student does not reply their email concerning the career development of the student?
I asked professors for recommendation letters this past year for grad school applications. I got into one school, but I’ve decided to put off going due to the coronavirus (the program was going to be online). Also, secretly, I decided I should be pursuing a different path after a lot more reflection.
All of my professors I asked for letters, understandably, told me to let them know what I end up doing. I haven’t yet. Will they be pissed off if I tell them about my change of plans? Should I just not email at all?
I do feel bad having had them write letters that ultimately will not be used.

I think you should tell them, but that it really is not important.

Professors are people and are annoyed by the same things that ordinary people are annoyed by. Try the interpersonal skills stack exchange.

If you find a productive path then the professors will be happy to know.
They probably don’t keep a list of reference leters with “got a job” or “not got a job”... At least I don’t...
Just nice to get an email from a student from 2, 5 or more years ago with an update.


text:
How do weekly seminar speakers get picked by a STEM department?
When there's a weekly seminar in a STEM department that professors and grad students attend, how are these speakers given slots?
Are they invited?  By whom?
Can they apply to speak at some weekly seminar, e.g. apply to give a math talk at Harvard?
Do the seminar speakers then get their airfare and hotel paid for by the department's own budget?

The process is going to be different for every seminar series.

Joke: The new head of the Science dept insists that each sub-dept makes a presentation each week on their progress. The physics sub-head is not impressed as they want to work and not waste time. Two weeks later it is their turn. So, gets up and spends 2 hours explaining the differential equations they solved last week, 1 hour explaining the ones they are working on this week and half an hour on the ones they are looking forward to working on next week. They were never asked to present again...

@SolarMike I don't get it.

@AzorAhai then you must love differential equations too much.

@SolarMike To be honest, I don't know what they are

@Jessica well, compared to some of those meetings where the only useful and measurable output is the date of the next one... I agree:)

I have voted to reopen the question.  While it's true that every department is different, there are certainly general practices that are widely followed, with variations, and I think this question is answerable on that basis.

As has been noted, everywhere will have its own procedures, but I think my department is fairly typical of what I've seen elsewhere:

One or two junior faculty are responsible for organising the main seminar series
Every few months they solicit suggestions for seminar speakers from the other faculty. Nominations come in different forms, e.g.:

"I think Prof. Jones work is cool, we should invite her sometime"
"Prof. Jones is going to be visiting me for two weeks in March, perhaps she could give a talk"
"Prof. Jones emailed me to say she's going to be in our state for that conference in May, maybe we could get her up here too?".

The seminar organisers then try and assemble a programme, balancing many factors (breadth of topics, speaker availability, diversity considerations, political clout of nominator...)
The department expects to pay some travel and a night or two's accommodation for anyone scheduled in the main seminar series. Sometimes speakers will decline this (e.g. if they were in town anyway); sometimes individual faculty will supplement it (e.g. to enable someone to stay for a whole week).

In addition to this main seminar series, individual faculty members may arrange 'special seminars'. Typically this occurs when someone happens to be visiting for other reasons, and there isn't a convenient empty slot in the main seminar series. Special seminars may not be as widely-advertised or attended as the main series. Any costs are typically borne by the hosting faculty member (out of their grants/etc), rather than the department (but they are often minimal, as the speaker was invariably in town anyway).
I think it is pretty uncommon to specifically offer to contribute to the department's main seminar series. However, it is very common to contact acquaintances with messages like "Hi Prof Smith, I'm going to be in town next month. If you have time, it would be nice to catch up and I can show you my new proof of the Basketweaver Theorem. Of course, I'd be happy to make it into a talk!". In such circumstances, you should not then expect any reimbursements, though often you will at least get taken out for lunch/dinner.

Coming from a national lab (US) perspective, I select possible seminars based on my current work and typical travel destinations, then volunteer to give a talk offering a range of possible dates. Since I'm already traveling for business, I don't accept any reimbursements. Always fun to get out and meet students.

Volunteering to give a seminar seems to be more acceptable in some places than others. In my subject (mathematics), in the UK this would be seen rude and presumptuous, but I think it's not so out of the ordinary in the US.

Can you clarify? Any costs are typically borne by the hosting faculty, rather than the department Do you mean the "hosting faculty member"? Because otherwise I would understand "the hosting faculty" and "the department" to be the same.

In some places, lab/group (Ahai Lab) ⊆ department (e.g., stats) ⊆ faculty/school/college (Arts and Sciences) ⊆ university

I'd also add that for us, the hosting costs are strictly limited - the dept will not ordinarily pay for an speaker from outside the UK, and will not normally expect to pay for overnight accommodation (although will do in some circumstances)

@DavidLoeffler In the US (still in math) I think it's somewhat presumptuous if there's not already a relationship in place, which is not to say it doesn't happen.  Personally, I wouldn't ever invite myself to give a talk somewhere else without solicitation, though I do sometimes ask if I can visit someone, which may or may not lead to a seminar invitation.

avid: it sounds like your seminar series is much more organized than ours :)

This varies a lot.
Sometimes the department will be interviewing to hire new faculty members.  The candidate will be asked to give a seminar as a part of the interview process.
Sometimes a professor from another institution will be in town anyway (e.g. for a conference or some other meeting), and will be asked to give a seminar.
Sometimes a professor will be specifically invited to come to give the seminar.  Usually there would be a committee in charge of picking speakers.
Airfare/hotel compensation would be very situation dependent.

The second point and the compensation question are also often combined in a reverse way. At least in maths it doesn't seem to be uncommon that the main goal isn't to invite someone for a seminar, but rather to pay for a research visit using the seminar funds, by having the visitor also give a talk.


text:
Subject or object in the Dewey Decimal Classification
I'm not sure I understand how the Dewey Decimal Classification works. Do the numbers relate to the object or subject of the book?
The confusion I have comes from the fact that in my faculty library, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (ISBN 9780415278447) and the Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science (ISBN 0190939397) have a completely different subject, the first one talks about science, the second one about philosophy, but the same number (501). And according to http://classify.oclc.org this is the choice most often made.

At the time the first book was written, the 501 classification was probably sufficiently diffuse that it fit. Also, the classifications are not made by subject matter experts, and often there are misfits. A particularly bad example that I'm aware of is this book, which deals with a very specialized hard-core classical real analysis topic, but in university libraries you'll find it shelved at QA212.T49 (Library of Congress #) among books dealing with abstract algebra (specifically, symmetric functions in the theory of equations sense).