text:
"Catching up" after two years in the wrong school
I'm a student in a mid-ranked computer engineering school in France. This is unsatisfying to me for several reasons:

I recently discovered that I strongly prefer the mathematical aspects of computer science to the programming side of it, and I would like to continue my career working on machine learning/statistics, which is not an option in my current school. I've done pure mathematics and physics in my two years of preparatory classes, which ended a year and a half ago, but haven't had a proper math course since then, except for some probabilities and Boolean logic.
The school's ranking and course offering are disappointing to me. I am there as a result of a bad personal situation during my first undergrad years, and I would have aimed for a completely different path if I could.

I'm in my first year of Master's degree (4th year after high school), and considering my options. I wonder if, by working hard enough, it's still possible to get a more theoretical degree from a good school, or if it's already too late to try again and my academic path is set.
Additionally, I would like to go finish my studies abroad at some point, and already have a few cities and universities in mind. I would like a researcher or research engineer's position in the private sector.
I am considering the following options:

Finishing my Master's degree while catching up on maths on the side, then trying to get into a PhD programme abroad.
Finishing my Master's, finding work in a machine learning- or statistics-related field for one year, then applying to a PhD programme. The year off would give me more time to get the required level in maths, and the professional experience could be useful when applying.
Trying right away to get into another school's Master's programme that would be better adapted to my plans.

For all I know, all of these may be unrealistic (starting a PhD after two years without math courses would at least require a lot of work on the side, and I don't see how my application could have a chance without a math-related degree to prove I'm competent; getting into a foreign school's master's programme is probably a very selective and/or expensive transition, especially if I'm coming from a lower-ranked institution).
The ideal way would be to go back to high school and do the preparatory classes again, this time without external problems to discourage me. Of course, this isn't possible.
I realize that what I want to do is hard. I kind of regret the low motivation I had and the choices I made a few years ago. I am mostly trying to get an overview of what I can aim for and what is off the table. What would be a good way to proceed from here?

When you say high school, do you mean undergraduate studies?

@Spark I mean high school, before higher education. This is my 4th year after the baccalauréat, which is the French diploma we pass when finishing high school.

Got it, well you can see my answer :)

Finish the program you are in.  Then look to go immediately to a program you like.  They are familiar with some students having less math background.  You can remediate that while you are doing your Ph.D. The sidetracks are not worth it.  Finally, school prestige in France is more a thing in France.  Abroad programs will be more interested how smart you are.

A similar misadventure happened to me. The problem is that France is an incredibly unfair country which provides more to foreign people than to its own citizens. While you could brush up your academic CV going abroad, France still (illegally) discriminates harshly on age, and schools (but only for its own citizens), and being French and having been abroad is not viewed in the same manner as a foreign person coming from abroad. For the French person, it is seen as being a failure. This means that you might have to leave the country once and for all once you graduate if you want a good job.

@Arno did you take things like health care into account? Are you sure you're going to end up in a first world country? Do you not resent being pretty much thrown away from your country of origin like a dirty pair of socks? If yes then good luck to you, this is probably for the best. I wish I could be as happy as you at the prospect of leaving my spot to some refugee.

Be clear about the distinction between "the mathematical side of computer science" and "machine learning or statistics."  The mathematical side of computer science is "theoretical computer science."  Machine learning, statistics, and data science are really interdisiciplinary topics that lie in between computer science and statistics and mathematics.  Furthermore, you say that you aren't interested in "the programming side", but research in machine learning and related fields will require a lot of programming on your part.

@BrianBorchers You're right, I could have been clearer. I actually like and considered both TCS and ML/stats, but I am pretty sure now that I'm going to work in data science. As for programming, I am good at it and like it, but definitely don't want a career as a programmer. Using that skill in another career is fine.

First of all, nothing is off the table. You are still in the very beginning of your academic path and nothing is closed off irrevocably. You are correct in thinking that a CS degree will require you to catch up on fundamentals. The question is how much time and effort would you like to invest in this endeavor. I don't think that dropping out of the engineering program is necessary. A lot of people transition from engineering to CS, you are by no means the first to want to make the switch.
So what are the options of a master of engineering holder to get into a CS PhD?

Doing nothing: You can probably get into some CS PhD program right now if your research statement/references are good, though you are not likely to get into one of the top international programs. School rank does not matter in PhD as much as your ability to find a good advisor with whom you are able to publish! This is a function of your mutual fit and joint capability, not the school's ranking.
Getting a master in CS: if you want to get some foundational knowledge and have time to familiarize yourself with the field, you can just take 2 years to complete another master's degree. The downside here is that it takes time and money, the upside is that you get another degree to your name and time to gain the necessary experience.
Getting a CS undergraduate degree: this is really resetting your academic clock to some degree. It will take you a while (though you may have the option of getting credits for your existing classes, depending on where you take your undergraduate degree). There's nothing wrong with going back to basics, but it is a bit extreme.

To conclude, what you want to do is not easy, but certainly within the realm of plausibility. I would say that the current hype around AI/ML is not playing in your favor. The competition for these programs can be quite fierce, especially in top schools, so if your life dream is joining them it may require you getting some professional training via a masters at least.


text:
For MathJobs does it matter what you put down for Primary Interest?
Is it better to indicate 3 interests rather than one? Does it affect who looks at my file or affect my chances of acceptance in any way? For example, suppose I'm mainly interested in combinatorics but also am interested in algebraic topology. If I just put down combinatorics as my primary interest and nobody in the department does combinatorics, will that make the file worse than if I had put down 2 interests?

When I, as a faculty member, go to MathJobs to evaluate postdoc applications, the first thing I do is to click a link that sorts the applications by research area. That way, I can efficiently go through the applications in my field without having to scroll through the whole database. As far as I can tell, the sorting is done on the basis of the applicant's primary interest. So the answer to your title is yes, your choice of primary interest definitely matters.

Yes, the sorting is done based on primary interest.  You can also do searches that include secondary interests.  E.g., sometimes when I look at postdoc candidates, I search for candidates with "number theory" listed as one of their interests, though I imagine this is the less common way to "sort" postdoc candidates.  Thus adding secondary interests can also make some difference in getting your application seen.

If the job has a heavy teaching component then a variety of interests is probably valued. For a primarily research job, however, having interests that are aligned in some way with current faculty will be helpful as it adds synergy. In such a case, specialization would likely be valued over generalization.
Do your homework and find out what are the needs of the department you would be joining. I assume that for a post-doc, research is the more important thing, but it should also be compatible with current faculty interests.
However, if you are in a particularly hot/new area, then being unique in a department might be an advantage, especially if other members of the faculty were interested in moving in your direction. That would be more likely in a regular position, of course.
For the MathJobs database, you have a delicate balance, depending on the job you seek. If you want a research position, don't give the impression that you are a dabbler in many fields, but that you are focused on your primary area. You can also, perhaps, say that you have secondary interests, especially if the support your main focus in some way.
But, be honest in all things. It is a mistake to "oversell" yourself. Be sure that you are competent in any field you claim as your own.

In my research statement I said I was interested in fields X and Y. But in the MathJobs online application I sometimes just put X as my primary interest and didn't list Y as my secondary interest. Does this matter?

For a general statement, list more, I think. But when applying for a specific job, tailor it to that position. Every application can be unique.

My original reading was "math jobs" not "MathJobs", so my first answer was probably a bit too general. See the update.

Teaching positions generally involve mainly undergrad classes. Mathematicians can generally teach many, many undergraduate classes that are not in their primary fields of interest. When applying on Mathjobs, you should be honest. If you say that one of your secondary interests is number theory, say, and it comes out in the interview that you know relatively little about number theory, you have just shot yourself in the foot.  If your primary interest is combinatorics, you should probably also list algebraic topology only if you know enough about it to write a paper in it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Posting what I learn and notes from my classes moral dilemma
So basically, I have my own personal site where I write about what I learn and study. I use it to write notes and details on what I am working on.
I specifically try to avoid posting anything directly copied from class and anything that included what rightfully belongs to the professor i.e. the professor's lecture notes and etc.
The only things I share are my notes taken from the textbook and what I write for the class after it's been graded. Also, the site is hidden from search engines, but can be still found if people have the link (which only 5 people know of and none are classmates).
That being said, is it still immoral to post what I learn and so forth? I do my best to make sure to give rightful credit, but I still doubt the right to share.

What do you mean by "try to avoid posting anything ...[that] rightfully belongs to the professor" - do you post anything that was created by someone else, or not?

@ff524 what I mean by try is that I do not write anything directly belonging to someone else, but the thing that I cannot avoid is quoting/paraphrasing the question I respond to in my notes. For example: prompt questions I write responses to.
Also, I try to write guidelines on what to study which are based on what the course is teaching and I add what I think are important to read.

I think in general that what you are doing is without moral implications. You are certainly free to post your own thoughts or your interpretations of what a professor has said in class.
However, it would also be good to talk to your professor and get his/her advice. If you post problems or exam questions you might be, inadvertently, helping others to cheat, which would be unfortunate. The professor might request that you not do that.
Whether you cross over into copyright infringement or not depends on a lot of things. I will guess, but you should verify, that even the professor's notes would be permitted by some, even though they are copyrighted.
But for your own thoughts and words, you are certainly on solid ethical/moral ground. Even if other students find them, it isn't infringing for them to use your thoughts to help mold their own.
As a professor, I put a lot of things online for students to use. I also had mailing lists to which students could share their thoughts and help one another, with few limitations. Making it public/open to all makes it useful and avoids some ethical concerns that might occur (if rarely).
Nor is it unethical for you to simply help fellow students learn through conversations, etc. as long as you don't abet actual cheating. But I see no issues of that in what you describe.

Hi Buffy, thank you the clear and quick response!
The one goal I had aimed for the notes and writings were to help some high school friends who were interested in the material. It seemed like it would be a helpful thing and so I started writing.
I will definitely ask the professor about it.

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


text:
How important is it to have publications to get a math postdoc?
The applications often ask for a publication list. If the only publication on the list is a thesis in preparation/preprint, would the candidate's application be rejected because of that? Is it necessary to have more than a thesis to be competitive/considered?
I ask this because one mathematician told me that he doesn't care about the number of publications, but about the quality of the work. Then again, 5 high-quality publications is better than 4...

[The following answer is from the point of view of a tenured professor of theoretical mathematics at an American university.  I believe that most of what I say applies in many places outside of the United States, but not everywhere, and I will not try to say exactly where I think it applies.]
A generation ago the publication culture within mathematics was quite different from other STEM fields.  Students leaving their PhDs were not expected to have any publications at all, and I believe the majority of them did not.  This phenomenon was pretty extreme, to the extent that for many eminent mathematicians you can see that their first publication is work done at an REU when they were an undergraduate, often followed by a gap of about five years, then their "real" publications begin only after their thesis.  A postdoctoral job was awarded mostly based on the relatively brief description of the thesis work provided by the student and (more importantly, I think) the student's thesis advisor.
[In my case, I graduated with a math PhD from Harvard in 2003 and my first paper wasn't until 2005.  To make sure I wasn't overextrapolating from my own experience, I went back to look at my classmates at Harvard.  I found a few cases in which a paper from their thesis appeared slightly before they graduated, but in most cases their first paper appears 1-2 years after graduation.]
Nowadays, a few graduating PhDs can still function on the above model, but only under really ideal conditions: top program, advisor with enormous pull who says great things about you in the letter.  To get personal again:
1) I am about to graduate my fifth PhD student at UGA.  All of these students had at least a submitted paper by the time they graduate; in most cases they had one or more accepted papers.
2) Part of the application for postdoc positions at UGA [of which there are several kinds, but this is a common feature] is a publication list.  I have been responsible for making offers to postdocs for a while now, and I am struggling to remember making an offer to someone who didn't at least have a publicly available submitted preprint.  Sometimes we have had candidates who were otherwise of interest but it's hard to pull the trigger based on seeing none of their work when there are so many other applicants who have multiple papers.
And to get less personal:
3) Whereas 15 years ago good students from top departments didn't need and most often didn't have any preprints, nowadays it is more common for good students from top departments to exit with several papers.
I do however want to add an important caveat: more mathematics done is better than less mathematics done.  [As is not so surprising!]  However, more papers are not better than fewer papers if the more papers don't create the impression of having done more work of significance.  In particular, the cultural of theoretical mathematics very much works against the LPU model espoused in another answer: writing too many papers on the same topic "without new ideas" creates a poor impression.  If two mathematical journals differ by one tier, than having one paper in the better journal is better than having at least two papers in the worse journal.  If the journals differ by more than one tier, having one paper in the better journal is probably better than having any number of papers in the worse journal.  The top journals in mathematics want to publish important, substantial, difficult, breakthrough work: if you split one such 40 page paper up into four ten page papers, then you have four papers that each do very partial things and are not going to be published in nearly as good venues.  Moreover you will get the reputation as having "more papers than theorems," which is not good.
I would say that the following is a good publication model for a new math PhD: have a portion of your thesis already submitted to a good journal and have one other reasonable paper [possibly on a different topic] published elsewhere.  More papers than that is not necessarily helpful: the quality of your thesis work still matters more.

Do you have advice/ an algorithm on how to increase my chances at having more substantial papers? I wonder if the higher standards are due to increases in training. A century ago it was considered impossible to play Tchaikovsky's violin concerto. Nowadays being able to play the same piece is considered less impressive.

@PeteLClark Prof Clark, just curious: does the number of years spent in a PhD program influence how the number of publications is perceived? For example, is having one submission at a UK three-year program worse than two submissions at a US six-year program?

@Grad student: I can't think of anything that is (i) general and (ii) helpful; sorry.  (Please talk to your advisor!)  Regarding increases in standards: one has to wonder whether young mathematicians are actually better / more productive now than before or pushed more strongly towards writing and publishing.  I think that both are true, but in what proportion is an interesting question.

@user113878: It makes sense to take that into account, but I'm not sure how much it is done in practice; probably different departments / groups / people do so to different extents.  Also, for whatever it's worth: three years is very short.  So far as I can recall, we get very few postdoc applications from people finishing up a UK PhD.

Regarding increase in standards: Over the longer term, I think this is due to an increase in competition, not training.  A hundred years ago, with very few exceptions, only men from well-off families had the chance to study mathematics (or music).  Nowadays, while not everyone has an equal chance, more people have a chance to study mathematics, and the number of mathematics positions (much less the number of pages in top journals) has not increased in proportion.

Could you expand UGA at least once in the answer? 2. Maybe add a note to the publication model in the last paragraph about this being specific to an area (USA, I guess).

I'm a extremely dismayed by how much stock you put in publication venue, which has been shown to correspond only poorly with work quality, and in which many factors other than quality (connections, luck) play a predominant role.

@Konrad: I don't really disagree with your comment, and what I wrote above is not really my opinion so much as my take on the standard opinion within my field.   However, if pressed I would have to admit that I think it is difficult to give a meaning to "work quality" in theoretical mathematics that is not largely sociological.  Otherwise put: we are primarily evaluating work by trying to figure out what the community thinks of it.  Is this fair?  No, it is not.

@PeteL.Clark What you call unfair I call, paraphrasing Churchill, "The worst system, except for all the others."

@Anonymous: Yes, I agree.  I do not have anything superior in mind and I am not personally unhappy with the current system, but I think it is not healthy to pretend that it is better than it is.

This advice is quite different from Matt Emerton's advice here: https://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/thoughts-on-graduate-school/ "Just as with grad student applicants (at least in my view), one simply doesn’t expect post-doc applicants to have produced papers"

@Mehta: Prof. Emerton is not giving advice so much as describing his own selection of postdocs.  His advice makes more sense for getting a postdoc from an absolutely top place (where he is).  It was also written ten years ago.  The rise of the publish-or-perish culture in academic mathematics since then has been rather precipitous.

@Pete L. Clark: I guess the overall point is to stand out from the other qualified candidates. I attended a panel for early career researchers and when asked what aspect of academia was surprising, a new tenure-track professor said he was surprised by the number of applications they receive. I have also applied to a postdoc where applicants were assigned a numerical score based on things like fit with the department and research potential. That involved quality and quantity of publications, as well as having invited talks. I was on the good to very good level but alas, not "excellent."

You frame the question incorrectly. With the great number of applicants per position, rejections do not need a reason. It is the acceptances that need a reason.
What will make your application stand out and convince the reviewers that you are going to do great work? Great past work is one such evidence, very supportive letters from people who know you is another, as is (positive) personal knowledge of you.
To take the example of thesis-only publication: If the thesis solves a big problem, and experts are already convinced by the outline of the argument that you presented to them, then great! If, as is more common, the thesis is not written yet, and the only people who know anything about the problem and its solution are you and your advisor, the available evidence is much less convincing.
As most of us do not make a single field-changing advance in our doctoral work, we must rely on several lesser signals to convey our potential. That is why completing several papers and having them accepted by journals with harsh standards, and also having good letters of support is the most common way of convincing that you are going to do great work in the future.

Even for a pure math postdoc? It is easier to publish in combinatorics or analytic number theory than in other fields...

@Mehta Well, if that is true, that means only that the applicants in those areas need to produce even more evidence to convince the hiring committees. (BTW, I think that this statement is not entirely true, as good publications are equally hard in every area of science. Otherwise, how did  all the smart people in those areas failed to publish before whatever you are publishing now?)

Publications will always be important. There is no way around this. A strong publication record (or even any publication record at all) is never going to disqualify someone.
However, one of the main purposes of a post-doc is to build one's publication record. This is why a post-doc is often done as a preface to a tenure-track professorship.
In my case, I had no publications when I completed my PhD. My advisor had run off to North Carolina (my school was in Illinois) and pretty much cut off all contact before I defended. I still was able to get a very good post-doc that led to a "tenure-track" job. (I place "tenure-track" in quotes, since my institution does not give tenure, but they have equivalent promotions and positions).
Your letters of recommendation will matter, as will statements of purpose and research statements. Post-docs can often be hired based on potential. An applicant who can speak and write articulately will always be strong candidate if they have good letters of recommendation.

In my situation a lot of time was spent just trying to learn the prerequisite material and finding errors in papers that I was reading and getting thrown off by that. So much context is missing when you just look at the publication list... I've learned that a lot of it depends on how easy it is to learn the content I need to learn, not just platitudes like "hard work" and "willpower."

These are great concepts to speak to in a statement of purpose. When I look at post-docs, I look at the publication record, but I also look very strongly at how the candidate views research and learning as a process.

Around here (Finland, to some extent other Nordic countries), a mathematics PhD thesis often consists of three or so papers, possibly one of which should be single-authored (this is more common in proof-based and rarer in more numerical fields, as far as I understand).
Based on this, someone with no publications would often be a disadvantage. A good thesis might make up for it; monograph theses are still written around here. People also understand that academia differs; for example, I understand that PhD theses in US tend to be systematically less impressive than local ones (due to a shorter time of PhD studies), which is known to at least some faculty.

I'm a bit puzzled by the sentence "in the US tend to be systematically less impressive.... due to a shorter time of PhD studies)  I'd say in here on average it takes between 5 to 6 years for a graduate students to finish the program.  In fact, in some European countries there is no coursework required after master's program and doctorate ia  3 years long(like in Germany)Also based on what evidences you are claiming American theses are less impressive?I'm not sure how one measures impressiveness of a thesis but definitely graduates from top American universities have impressive enough thesis

I think it is extremely important.   At a minimum, try to figure out how the thesis can be broken into LPUs* and published.
People want production.  Papers are production.  Don't let anyone bleating about the purity of science tell you otherwise.  I'm here to give you the sitting-in-the-bar truth.  People who pat you on the shoulder and say "it's fine" are not doing you a favor by being nicey-nice and not sharing the real skinny.
Note, LPUs are not as sleazy as they sound.  People very rarely read/cite Ph.D. theses.  You need to get your work into journals so that people can benefit from it.  A tree falling in the forest, not getting heard, does nobody any benefit.  Even if the work is imperfect or incomplete, figure out how to wrap it up into publishable units.  LPUs are easy to read, process, review, etc.
The same thing will apply in the work world (especially in industry or government, but also academia) if you lose funding on an initiative.  PUBLISH your work.  Of course, you want perfection.  But there is a chronic issue of partial or even completed work never being written up (much of it funded by tax dollars).  That the work is not complete or perfect is immaterial (although I admire the drive for perfection).  At a certain point, you just have to wrap up.  So figure it out, how to do so.  There is a famous line in The Hot Zone where a scientist criticizes someone for not publishing a single medical case (i.e. sample size 1!) of airborne ebola in a monkey.
Ideally you will BOTH do good work AND publish it.  But if you do good work and don't publish, you are useless.  If I say a record with no journal publications, I assume either you didn't accomplish anything OR you are bad at writing things up.  Of course the latter is "less bad".  But it's still bad.  Postdocs should be producers.  And you demonstrate this during your Ph.D., especially towards the end.  You show that you are a producer; get things done; stand on your own; etc.  It's one of the reasons why you are ready to leave.
You can, right now, at least chop your thesis, into a few separate computer files (of planned papers), put a title on each paper.  Now you have some "in preparation" papers.  Ideally, I would get some of them out the door, so you can put "submitted, J. Subspec. Math," on your pub list.  But at least several "in preps".
*Least Publishable Unit

Often times it is not that a PhD student is unmotivated to publish. Rather it is overcoming the administrative barriers inherent in being amenable to an advisor's whims.

Push, push.  Figure out how you want to cut it up.  Where to send it.  how to chop it up.  Then just write it and dump on the old man's desk.  Sure it is POSSIBLE that you still get blocked.  But much rarer.  There are a lot of people waiting for direction or asking for permission or guidance.  A Ph.D. in the second half of his degree should be taking initiative.  If you still get blocked, fine.  But this guy did NOT say "my advisor is sitting on my completely written and ready to be mailed out papers". For one thing, if he had those, he could at least put "in prep" on the pub list.

Is the answer based on being a or hiring math postdocs? There are differences between fields in how much one is expected to publish in general and at particular point of career developmen.

I'm aware that math people do less.  But zero journal pubs is not a good score.  Especially in a market full of people competing for few spots (e.g. see other question asking about "why am I not competitive for positions")

I explained in my answer why I think this LPU business is a bad model for theoretical mathematics.

Pete, stellar answer with lots of very specific subject experience.  Kudos.

For "grad student", per your question under Pete's answer, I think to increase the importance of your papers, you at least need to start having SOME papers.  This is not meant flippantly but practically.  You need to get used to writing journal articles. It sounds like you have not written a single draft of a paper (of any importance).


text:
I got caught writing my student ID number after the end of the exam. Will I get in trouble?
I had an exam yesterday morning which lasted 2 hours. There were two supervisors in the room for about 25-30 students.
Before the beginning of the exam and again 5 minutes before the end, they told us not to forget to write our name and student ID number on each sheet (we used our own paper to answer the questions of the exam sheet but they had in reserve in case we had not enough), something which was also indicated at the front page of the exam question sheet.
At the end, they told us to stop writing and not leave immediately, that they will now proceed to collect all exams and check that they have all of them, after what we would be allowed leave. To do this, for each student, they stapled his/ her exam question sheet with the other sheets on which he/ she wrote his/ her answers.

Now here is my problem: while they were collecting the exams, I noticed that I had forgotten to write my student card number (not the name) on one of my sheet. So I quickly took my pen and wrote it on the sheet, something that took no more than 2 seconds.
But then, once finished, I noticed that one of the two supervisor was looking at me with an angry frown while the other was stapling a student exam just next to him, so obviously he noticed that I had written something on one of my sheet.
They continued to collect all exams like normal. But once they were near me - I was the last student of the column -, the supervisor who had given me the angry frown collected the exam of the student in the row in front of me (there was one student sitting at each seat row end during the exam) and already directed himself with the pile of exams of our column to the main desk where they were gathering all exams, while the other supervisor was still busy stapling my exam.
So the second supervisor then took my exam alone in his hand. This supervisor then put my exam on the main desk and then put at least one sheet that I could not identify on top of it (so he did not put it on the exam pile of our column), and so I saw it disappear. They then said we could leave and began to sort the exams in alphabetical order (at least that's what it seemed to me they were doing)

So my questions are :

Will I likely get accused of cheating in  a few days?
Did the other supervisor take my exam alone in order to put it on
the side so they can identify who I am?
Should I write a mail to them and explain what I was really doing?
If I really get accused, how should I behave? Should I just tell
them what I was doing even if they of course can not know if I am
lying or not?

I already talked about it with my father, who is a law professor, and he said I am dramatising the entire thing and that if they really wanted to do something, they would not have let me leave the room. Moreover, he said they could not prove anything, especially given that only one of both supervisors noticed what I was doing (and there is no video surveillance in the room). That if I really get called in the office in a few days, I would just need to say that I was writing my student card number, and that's it.

I know this is a bit long, but the more I think about it, the more I think something will happen, so I would like your opinion about that matter.
 Thanks for your help.

If something is not appropriate with my question, please say it in the comments so I can edit it. Thank you

There's not enough information here to draw any conclusions about what, if anything, is likely to happen, but I would nevertheless give you a bit of advice: You gain nothing by worrying about all the possibilities. As long as nothing has actually happened to you, don't worry about it.

@AndreasBlass Thanks for your support, but in case something happens, I want to already know a bit how I will have to proceed

I have no idea what they will do, but next time I think I would point out to the collectors that your ID number is missing, and write it in while they watch.

@AndrewLazarus Yeah, my parents told me the same thing. I did not expect such a reaction for less than 2 seconds of writing. I was really naive obviously -_-

As a fun anecdote that might help you feel a little more relieved about your situation: once, upon collecting the exams, another professor in the room was collecting exams and came across a student still writing. The professor insisted that the student put his pencil down and attempted to collect the exam. The student actually grabbed the exam and held onto it, initially refusing to let the professor take it! After a few seconds, the student thought better of his actions, but needless to say, I was rather shocked. End result? A slap on the wrist from the professor (metaphorically). You're safe

How can you prove it was "just" your student number - that is such an old excuse it is way beyond pension age...

@SolarMike Yes, it’s an easy to use excuse but precisely because it is true a lot of the time. I could easily forget putting my student number on the nth extra sheet, I imagine if you don’t finish the exam on time the hectics might make you forget about it. Besides, if you can earn so many points that it becomes problematic to take this “excuse” at face value by writing the equivalent of a student number, probably something is wrong with the scoring.

@11684 It's feeble, because they were told twice clearly, once at the start and once 5 minutes before the end... If they struggle with simple instructions...

You are definitely overthinking this: in the worst case, they wrote down on their report that you wrote something when the time was finished. This could result in you getting your mark slightly reduced to account for the additional time.
I insist that this is the worst case scenario: this is clearly not a case of cheating, in all the exams I attended there are always a few students forgetting to write their student number and adding it at the end, some mistakenly writing their names, etc.
It is actually very likely that what you interpreted as a special treatment for your paper was completely normal. In my experience papers are collected in no particular order.
Take this angry frown for what it probably is: just a warning that you should follow the instructions.

It may turn out fine.  But we will find out, won't we.
However, I have been in very strict military schools where pencils down, literally meant that.  And your behavior would certainly be disciplined.
For one thing, you could have waited until the instructor got there and then got permission to make the addition (or asked him to make it for you).  The instructor can't tell what you wrote, late.  Neither can your classmates.  Also, I have seen less strict schools where people did not honor the instruction to stop work.  Behavior like yours is likely to make other students feel they can continue work and make it difficult to administer exams.
I would certainly support the instructors if they make any sanction on you.
In addition, the title is likely inaccurate.  You got caught "writing", not "writing your number" after the exam.  (The instructor likely does not know exactly what/why you continued to write or if it was just limited to the number.)

I surely agree with your dad. Don't over react over the reaction of that one supervisor. If he/she had seen you directly and doubted on what you're doing, on that moment he/she would have called your attention or not let you leave the room, cause definitely they will act on that exact moment. So just calm down for now, and if ever what your overthinking really happens (that they will call you to the office), you have nothing to worry and just say the truth.


text:
Number of Papers for Doctor of Science (DSc)
I am a young scientist working in India after finishing Masters in Physics. In last three years of employment, I have co-authored around 12 papers so far. I am interested in going for D.Sc. I have seen some universities award DSc after Masters also, But I am not sure how many minimum number of  papers will be required to get D.Sc. Do you all have any idea ?. I may also apply from a abroad university.
Any help would be appreciated.

That will depend on the course you enroll in...

Since not all papers are created equal, I don't think that there is any minimum number other than one. It might also depend a lot on your contributions to co-authored papers. It also depends on field and Physics isn't mine. Finally, it depends a lot on where you are. In the US it would likely be very different from UK or India, for example.
Note that some fields/places tend to award a doctorate over an accumulation of work over several years/papers/projects. Others, it is primarily awarded on a specific dissertation and little else but qualifying examinations.
But the way to know if you qualify or are able to move quickly to your goal, you will need to ask someone at a particular university in a particular place.


text:
Is it appropriate to request that the department hire a female faculty member?
Our department is currently hiring a new faculty member. At the moment, the faculty gender ratio in our department is very skewed, even for our field. I believe that this has a negative impact on the department environment.
There is general consensus among the grad students on which candidate we support. This candidate is highly qualified in terms of her research and teaching. Moreover, among all the candidates who have visited, she is the only one who has any experience with diversity initiatives and getting underrepresented groups into STEM. This is very important to many of us, especially since the department is planning to add an undergraduate program in the near future.
We are planning to write an open letter to the department in support of this candidate, citing her qualifications as someone who has worked to make science a more inclusive place for women and other underrepresented minorities.
My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.
EDIT: Thank you for all of the answers, it certainly gives us a lot to think about. I would like to follow up on a couple things.

When I say something like "we think the department should hire a woman", I don't strictly mean that the next faculty should be a woman regardless of any other factors. Rather, I mean that the department should hire someone who will be able to relate to the issues women face in academia and STEM, and help champion female students in our department. The average woman will be in a better place to do this than the average man, so perhaps I should have been a bit more precise about what I meant in the original post.
While "diversity programs" designed to get underrepresented minorities into stem are discriminatory in the strictest sense of the word, they are in place to address systemic injustices which have existed for a very long time. The hypothetical examples of discriminating against men and women don't account for the fact that many gender/race imbalances in academia exist because of previous institutional discrimination.

could you add statistics? How many women, how many male faculty you have? what is ratio in student population?

Moderator’s notice: Answers in comments and extended discussions have been moved to chat. Please use comments only to suggest improvements to the question and mention related material. Read this FAQ before posting another comment. — Also, please refrain from using sarcasm and similar in answers and comments. It will be misunderstood. Finally, please remember to be nice.

What country are you in? There are very different legal prespectives in different places.

Is there a particular reason why a faculty member is supposed to the person to promote inclusive environment in your university? There are other functions where promoting a good environment or diversity are the main part of the job description. For a researcher/teacher this is complementary. Could you not campaign for a female in a different post than the faculty one?

Howdy!  Just some context questions about your environment: Is it normal for students to write letters requesting certain people be hired to teach them?  Has this proven effective in the past?

Related discussion in Workplace: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/128198/how-in-practice-can-i-hire-more-diversely

The question's title feels a bit off.  I mean, of course it's fine to request hiring a female faculty member; but, what's actually being asked if it's okay to request a faculty member because they're female.  It may sound a bit more offensive when directly stated, but if that's the question, it ought to be clearly expressed rather than downplayed.

the new faculty should be female in order to help address the wildly disproportionate gender ratio in our current faculty.

This is not a good reason. Gender imbalance is fought by educating everybody (males, females and any possible group) equally and hiring the best people, regardless of their gender, not choosing people by gender; that's sexism.

The candidate that we support is highly qualified in terms of research and teaching. Moreover, among all the candidates who have visited, they are the only one who have any experience with diversity initiatives and getting underrepresented groups into stem. This is very important to many of us, especially since the department is planning to add an undergraduate program in the near future.

These are very good reasons to hire someone, and reasons to be proud being hired for. If I were her, I'd find disrespectful being hired first because I'm a woman and second because of these good reasons.

We are planning to write an open letter to the department in support of this candidate, citing her qualifications as someone who has worked to make science a more inclusive place for women and other underrepresented minorities.

Again, these may be good points to write in the open letter, but the fact that she's a woman shouldn't matter. She's a great candidate no matter what her gender is.
I find this logic of hiring women because they are women very sexist, towards both men and women. Towards men because they are at a disadvantage, towards women because you're treating them like kids, giving them a preferential route they don't need. Women can clearly be good enough to be hired just for their skills and not for their gender.
Fight for her to be hired if you think she's the best choice. Write the letter and explain why she's the best choice, that she's better than the other candidates because she is better, not because she's a lady.

The current gender imbalance exists because preferential treatment is given to men all along in one way or another. So pushing the question back to "educating the best people" raises the same issues.

@ElizabethHenning I'm not sure I got what you mean so I won't answer, could you rephrase it please?

-1 hiring the best people, regardless of their gender - While I agree with this sentiment, there are many roles of a faculty member, and when there is a large gender imbalance, the gender of one candidate can put them in a better position to do things like serve as a role model and mentor to female students.  Who is to say what is best?  Gender aside, it's hard to decide who are the "best" candidates.

I moved most comments to chat and left only a few standing that outline the main debate. If you post another comment, please make sure that it contains a direct, new criticism of what this answer proposes, and read this FAQ. If you want to argue for an alternative way of action, please post another answer (and perhaps link it here). If you want to reply to an existing comment, please take it to chat. Finally @Runlikehell: please consider [edit]ing your answer in reaction to comments.

Hiring a woman who is worse than the best man (but still good) can be beneficial for the college (to motovate female students). Of course, this is probably not fair (in the sense that the man is rejected only because of his gender) but can be the best choice.

If you write such an open letter and she is hired, there is a risk that rumor will spread that she was only hired because she is female and your open letter will help substantiate that rumor. Such rumors are harmful even if she was clearly hired on merit alone.
So consider the possibility that your letter does more harm than good. And, if you do write such a letter, make it clear that you think she is the most qualified candidate for the job, not that you think she should be hired for her gender.

I'm not voting on this, but the point should be made that traditionally marginalized people will be suspect for being hired because ... they belong to a traditionally marginalized group, as an "affirmative action" candidate ... whether or not that plays a decisive role. So, then, ... ???

@paulgarrett That is true, but such suspicions tend to get magnified by the existence of anything like a letter of support as proposed in the question (people who want to point to a hire as having been biased love to have something concrete to point to...).

@paulgarrett Yes, it's pretty hard to escape being labelled a diversity hire, but I imagine that the existence of such an open letter would make it much harder, especially if "open" means "easily googleable".

The risk is greater and a bit different.  Without the letter, there is a risk of a rumor that she is a diversity hire.  With the letter, the rumor will be true.

@TobiasKildetoft I do not see the problem, when following the question. If they want her because she is a woman, than she actually is the candidate because she is a woman. Why hide the reason, when its exactly the reason why you wanted her?

@allo I actually agree as long as the hiree is well informed of this letter when being given an offer. As someone with a disability, I would be quite offended if hired in such a way but I know plenty of people in my position who wouldn't be. An open letter I am well informed of would allow me to reject an offer so it could be given to somebody who wouldn't mind.

(The answer is written from a US perspective but may apply in certain other countries as well - hopefully this is of some relevance for OP.)
I am not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that what you are proposing (taking gender into account in hiring of faculty) would be illegal in any public university in my state, and I suspect it may run afoul of other US states’ and perhaps US federal legislation. See here and here for more information. I advise you to inform yourself of the laws and policies where you are before writing any letters.
Asking your department to do something that breaks the law is not only completely inappropriate, but it even risks leading a risk-averse administrator to choose (consciously or subconsciously) to take the opposite course of action from what you are proposing, just out of fear that they might later be accused of illegal discrimination, with your letter being used as evidence that they acted out of impure motives.
I do think it’s probably appropriate (under reasonable assumptions about your institution’s culture being a relatively normal and healthy one) for you and other graduate students to express your opinions to the department about which candidate is most qualified for the position, based on objective criteria that are unrelated to gender.

I think the legal prohibition also exists at the federal level. E.g., this EEOC page https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/ says, "It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against a job applicant because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information." Basically the way these state and federal laws work is that they give a list of protected characteristics. Sex is always one of them, and the sexes are treated symmetrically.

Not sure why this got down votes - in the US this is an extremely big deal and you cannot advocate that someone be hired solely on the basis of a protected category.

@anonymous I'm not among the down voters, but two possibilities: (1) the (current) continued existence of things like "affirmative action" creates a confused perception on when you can or cannot use protected categories as a basis for such a decision, leading some to feel it is erroneous to assert it would be illegal to champion based on a protected category in this instance; and, perhaps more likely, (2) A number of people on this site reflexively hate any and all "US-centric" answers, especially if the OP doesn't specifically tag the question as being for the US.

@zibadawatimmy I’m untroubled by the downvotes, but as for (1), the law seems clear that you cannot take gender into account in hiring. Do you have a reference for anyone suggesting that this is an “erroneous” interpretation? In fact the law in California explicitly forbids what you call “affirmative action”. Some people are unhappy about it, and try all kinds of things to bring affirmative action back through various back doors and guises, but the law is what it is. I’m not taking sides about whether it’s good or bad, just stating facts. Downvoting my answer would be shooting the messenger.

@DanRomik No, I'm not aware of such things, I'm just positing that it generates confusion when you can do it (in some jurisdictions, or at least previously could have) for admitting students to improve the educational experience, but you can't do it for hiring professors for (ostensibly) the exact same reason. Since the question has been protected and marked as controversial, I'm risking a guess it's appeared in the HNQ list and we've got a lot of people voting who aren't necessarily intimately familiar with the (legal) workings of academia, but nevertheless have strong opinions about it.

@DanRomik: One point of confusion is that "Affirmative Action" has two definitions.  People colloqually mean it to mean "disproportionately high hiring of minority status workers", but several laws define it to mean "hiring the best people without consideration of minority status".

@MooingDuck "One point of confusion is that "Affirmative Action" has two definitions." While there is some variation in its use, neither of the definitions you present are within the accepted meaning.  "several laws define it to mean "hiring the best people without consideration of minority status"" Do you have a cite for that definition?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States lists many laws passed under "Affirmative Action", and all prohibit discrimination based on gender.  And the Supreme Court has upheld that means businesses can't consider gender when hiring, and quotas are disallowed. (Note, there's some weird edge case allowing collages to have student quotas that I don't understand)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#United_States is clearer: Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".

Folks, this is getting off-topic and is unrelated to OP’s question. If you wish to discuss the minutiae of legal definitions of affirmative action and their history or similar things, can you please take it to chat?

It should be noted that this isn't true in Australia, where women only positions are indeed legal - see my answer for more details.

There is general agreement that more women in STEM would be a good thing. There appears to be considerable disagreement about how to achieve this. However, I would like to address the idea of the open letter specifically.

We are planning to write an open letter to the department in support of this candidate, citing her qualifications as someone who has worked to make science a more inclusive place for women and other underrepresented minorities.
My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

I may be slightly too risk averse, but I believe writing an open letter in support of a particular applicant (regardless of race, gender, etc) is ill advised for the following reasons:

It is not clear if this candidate wants/needs your support. I presume the fact you are aware of her candidacy implies she has made the short list for the post on her own merits (if gender was a factor in this decision is unknown).
The existence of such a letter and a (relatively) wide potential readership could be interpreted negatively by some groups. In my university it is not unusual for even trivial matters, such as the name of a student event, to make national news if it can be construed to be controversial. She may not want to have her name associated with such a potential controversy.
If she is hired your letter may be pointed to as evidence of bias in the hiring process even if there was none. In an extreme case it could even lead to a lawsuit. The university would have to be very careful about how to respond to the letter and may decide it is safer to avoid the candidate.
Your motivations for writing the letter may be questioned by some groups. Did you write it out of a genuine desire for more female faculty members or was she a friend/connection of yours and you're trying to manipulate the hiring process? (I think your intentions are genuine but others may see things differently)

If you would like to write an open letter advocating for more women academics in your department and highlighting the importance of making STEM more inclusive I think this could be a positive thing. But I don't think you should identify a particular candidate in the letter.
If you want to advocate for a particular candidate you should do so privately to the hiring committee. You could write a letter directly to the chair or discuss it with them in person. I also think this would be more effective.

"could be interpreted negatively by some groups" ---   "may be questioned by some groups. -- Rather, they may be interpreted or questioned by some individuals.  People are real; groups are tools.

It is certainly appropriate for you to express your desire for a particular candidate. In addition to writing to the chair of the department, it would also be helpful to contact the chair of the hiring committee (in case that individual is not the chair of the department).
If you are concerned about blowback for some reason, it would also be possible to write and submit the letter anonymously.

+1. You might want to suggest that the female students would be greatly aided by having one or more female mentors available in the faculty. I've known such appeals to be very effective, though it depends a lot on personalities, as you might expect.

The question doesn't ask whether it's appropriate to support a certain candidate, it asks whether it's appropriate to support a certain candidate because she's female. This doesn't address the question.

@BenCrowell No, the question asks whether it's appropriate to cite the fact that she's female as a factor influencing the hiring. Nothing in the OP states that they only want her because she's female.

We are planning to write an open letter to the department in support
  of this candidate, citing her qualifications as someone who has worked
  to make science a more inclusive place for women and other
  underrepresented minorities.

Assuming that you value inclusivity (and most do, although some don't), then supporting her candidacy for her abilities and experience is entirely appropriate.

My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to
  additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

Well, that does depend on how willing you are to be called out for sexism.
What is the difference between the following two statements:

Hire him because we want a man in the position.
Hire her because we want a woman in the position.

Oh, you can get all sorts of justifications, but the heart of it is that specifying the sex of a new hire as a job qualification is sexist. By definition.
Stick with the inclusivity argument. Everybody knows what you mean.

The consideration of every hire separately, without looking at the aggregate effect, often leads to the obvious problems. E.g., it's probably not exactly "we want a woman in the position", but, more like "we'd like at least one woman faculty member in the department, as opposed to all men"... I'd claim that it is very naive to pretend that people can look around themselves and ignore the fact that they are very unlike most of the other people in the room, and that the look of the other people is normative, etc...

@paulgarrett - Well, yes. It's the great paradox of affirmative action. If you  want the larger group to express the ideals, it is necessary to ignore those ideals when dealing with individuals, and vice-versa. Your comment is exactly correct, but it ignores the fact that selection is done on individuals, not a group, and selecting any individual based on sex is (again, by definition) sexist. The pattern goes way back. And if the sentiment being satisfied is, "we'd like at least one woman", well, congratulations - you've just established a quota. There are no good answers here.

@JamesMartin  If you are sexist against women, then equality feels like sexism against men.  So it is necessary to make the men feel uncomfortable just to gain equality.  In other words, if not considering gender is leading to an inequitable outcome, then you must deliberately consider gender to achieve equality.  Doing so is not sexist, it is antisexist.

@StevenGubkin - Regardless of comfortable/uncomfortable, is hiring based expllcitly on sex sexist? Yes or no? In common law justifiable homicide is not punished - it is, after all justified. Are you claiming that some sexism is justified? If so, say so and deal with the paradox, but don't take the common practice of refusing to call it what it is.

@JamesMartin It is sexist to do nothing in the face of obvious discrimination against potential female faculty.  If the implicit bias of the existing faculty will result in capable female candidates not being hired, then steps must be taken to counter that bias.  Countering the bias is not sexism.  It is antisexist.

@StevenGubkin - You are avoiding the underlying paradox by labelling in terms of results, rather than actions. To say that hiring explicitly on the basis of sex is not sexism if it "counters the bias" is obviously tempting (and you have fallen for the temptation), but it opens the door to all sorts of travesties. I suggest you look at the incident at Ben Tre in 1968 - "It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." As a cartoonish extreme, if you counter the bias by assassinating the male faculty, is that "antisexism" rather then murder? By your demonstrated usage, yes.

As I commented earlier, common law recognizes the distinction between murder/manslaughter and justifiable homicide. You, for ideological reasons, are attempting to avoid ethical complexity by labelling actions based on results, rather than on the actions themselves.

Or let me put it another way. "Countering the bias is not sexism. It is antisexist." is true as far as it goes, but it obscures the problem (which is not a problem for folks like you). A sexist act (hiring a woman because she is a woman) may have opposite motive, and have opposite results - but it remains a sexist act. This is the paradox which I have repeatedly referred to, and which you are attempting to gloss over. In effect, you are redefining "sexist" to something like "an action or thought or motive which contributes to sexual inequality", without taking the trouble to spell it out.

@JamesMartin Let's say there is a certain private high school in an area which is roughly 50/50 white and black.  Moreover, say that there are many highly qualified black applicants, but these are always passed over with a statement to the effect of "While the applicant was highly qualified, another more qualified applicant was given the position".  Would you say that, in a situation like this, it is racist to establish a rule that a certain number of admitted students must be black?  If you have a racist institution, it is not racist to desegregate it.  It is anti-racist.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

You can request that the process is thorough and, for example, short list is open. That is to prevent situation where candidates are all college buddies of some dude (because they went to all-male college or whatever).
You can influence the search processes, but hiring should be merit-based, and gender-neutral. However, in my opinion, "manels" appear because of lack of outreach and openness rather than "we couldn't find female candidates". So when people say

you should hire more women

what they mean (IMHO) is

check your process so that you don't follow implicit and explicit biases

For example, does your college provide day care? Or parental leave? Is there some controversial situation that is unresolved? (see what's up with my school)
And of course, you as students have (limited) power to nominate more candidates you deem high-quality. Nobody can stop you from telling your deans or professors "you should also consider X, Y, and Z because we love their work"

There is no reason to believe that when people say "hire more women" they actually mean some subtle and nuanced and completely different thing.  Listeners are entitled to believe that people mean what they say.

This only applies in the United States.

Our department is currently hiring a new faculty member. At the moment, the faculty gender ratio in our department is very skewed, even for our field. I believe that this has a negative impact on the department environment.

It is illegal to consider gender.  You could find that if a man were hired, they would alter the environment in the same way you are imagining a woman would.  What should matter is whether or not prior or existing hiring practices were/are discriminatory, which resulted in a skewed gender ratio.  For example, it can be illegal to hire by word of mouth if that method results in an all male or all female environment.  Did you put the desire to alter the departmental environment in your advertisement for the position?  If you did, then people of both genders would respond on how they have skills to do that.  If someone has certain skills that were not advertised for you cannot assume the others lack them if they do not believe they are supposed to show the skill.  Are you hiring based on criteria you did not place in the ad?

This candidate is highly qualified in terms of her research and teaching. Moreover, among all the candidates who have visited, she is the only one who has any experience with diversity initiatives and getting underrepresented groups into STEM. This is very important to many of us, especially since the department is planning to add an undergraduate program in the near future.

This is an appropriate reason to support a candidate if you placed in the advertisement.  If you have an ad that says we are hiring based on X, Y, Z and you support them because of A, then you may have a problem.  Did you ask the other candidates if they had experience in this?  They may, but may have felt it not relevant to the advertised job.  In Watson vs Fort Worth Banking and Trust, the court held that if discretionary criteria were used then suit could be brought under equal employment laws if there was a disparate impact.  This sounds like disparate impact to me but in the opposite direction of usual enforcement.

We are planning to write an open letter to the department in support of this candidate, citing her qualifications as someone who has worked to make science a more inclusive place for women and other underrepresented minorities.

Also appropriate, although weird.  By the nature of an open letter, it is open, which means it can be used by losing candidates in lawsuits for improper hiring practices.

My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

It is illegal for anyone with the power to consider a candidate's appropriateness to consider gender.  If you are considering gender and you have a vote, then you are in violation of US civil rights and employment laws.

When I say something like "we think the department should hire a woman", I don't strictly mean that the next faculty should be a woman regardless of any other factors. Rather, I mean that the department should hire someone who will be able to relate to the issues women face in academia and STEM, and help champion female students in our department. The average woman will be in a better place to do this than the average man, so perhaps I should have been a bit more precise about what I meant in the original post.

This is gender discrimination.  The illegal assumption is that men are unable to relate to women and their issues.  It is not legal to assume that a woman can do something better than a man or a man better than a woman.  You are confusing skill and knowledge with gender.  You are assuming that men are unaware of their environment or the work or professional issues women face.  You are also assuming they cannot encourage women into STEM.  The US Department of Education is investigating complaints on this under Title IX currently.

While "diversity programs" designed to get underrepresented minorities into stem are discriminatory in the strictest sense of the word, they are in place to address systemic injustices which have existed for a very long time. The hypothetical examples of discriminating against men and women don't account for the fact that many gender/race imbalances in academia exist because of previous institutional discrimination.

In Wards Cove Packing Co. v Antonio, the court ruled that you cannot consider the cumulative effect of past practices, but only specific policies.  So if discrimination existed in the past resulting in a current imbalance, then prior women who were not hired may file suit, but it is against the law to now discriminate to fix a prior policy.  Affirmative action for students comes under a very different legal structure than employment discrimination and rely on different parts of the legal code.

Please, do yourself a favor and skip the [sex, gender, skin pigmentation, ...](delete as appropriate) of the candidate at all.
It does not matter whether the candidate wears skirt or trousers. It does not matter whether the candidate prefer a night with a man, woman or both.
The other qualities do matter: their qualification, their teaching and mentoring skills, their research work, their managerial skills...
If you mention or even highligh their sex, the message you actually deliver is:

We want her beacuse she is a woman. Period. No matter how bad she is compared to other candidates.

Your message, on the other hand, needs to be:

The candidate we are supporting is the best candidate in the list.

Build the open letter on truthfully higlighting why you think the candidate is the best.

I think it's more about gender than sex here, could you consider editing to swap? I think that when it comes to employment discrimination, what's involved is of which gender a person appears or claims to be, not about what nature gave them for sexual organs.

My answer was about all sex, gender, preferences and skin colour. It was about anything that "matters" although the qualities that truly matters are marginalized. I think the [whatever] discrimination truly vanishes when all possibly discriminating factors will be ignored at all.

My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

It is not appropriate. Full stop. How can you think it can be?
(Being a female is not related to competences or work done or brilliant mind or attitude... or whatever! What kind of job selection could be that which starts from such a factor? Think twice!)

In current circulation, the common phrase people throw around is "We need more ____ in (advanced positions)" or "more representation for _____ in (advanced positions). This is a result, obviously. Meaning starts to get lost when people interpret the statement as implying "we need to correct for (discriminating criterion) when we position leaders", which is not what people mean when they say that at all. The means to achieve that result is not discrimination based on sex or race or what have you. That said,...
Mentioning gender at all is a sure way to spark backlash. If you're not hiring her specifically based on sex, don't mention it. The key is to mention in this letter the results she will achieve for the company. Refrain from all speculation on why she will achieve this.
Your letter could go something like this:

We believe she should be hired, as she is the best candidate for the job. Among other merits, she has experience with diversity initiatives and getting underrepresented groups into STEM.

You should not write:

We believe she should be hired because we need to support underrepresented groups in STEM.

That'll seem like you mean that you're hiring her due to her status as underrepresented.

I can see this from two perspectives:

The college benefits from recruiting. If the female candidate in question can help with STEM recruiting of females, it will bring more applicants (and money) to the college. The college could also then (later on) boast to be "in top-5 colleges for graduating female STEM grads" or what-not. (E.g., the college I go to boasts about being in the top-5 most diversified colleges in the US due to all the exchange students it brings in.)
The college is about cranking out research, not balancing gender gaps. As such, they won't care about what gender someone is, or what value they bring to gender diversification initiatives. They're just looking at everything from a research puppy mill perspective, and will hire whatever workhorse they think can crank out the research.

(As a side note, while researchers get stuck teaching, teaching is not their main job. So, a researcher that can teach well is probably a secondary attribute the college considers, but not as highly as, say, students would prefer. Some colleges don't care about a researcher's teaching ability or past experience. It's all about research with them. All of this really hinges on what the college values: research vs. bragging about what they provide for the students.)

Unless you are a research professor, teaching is part of the job description of a processor, so even universities that value research expect their professors to be competent in front of a classroom.

There are several examples worldwide of the best Universities posting academic jobs that are only open to women (most of the best unis in Australia have done this, including the Math department at the University of Melbourne [Australia], and the engineering department at the University of Adelaide). This is not a common practice though in most countries. Its generally only done when the department has a rather extreme gender imbalance.
The practice has been shown to drastically increase the quality of female applications for the position compared to open job advertisements. Women on average tend to apply less to positions where they don't feel they match the job description perfectly. For example, a male mathematician who works on partial differential equations that are often used by biologists, but who doesn't specialize in biological applications, is much more likely to apply for a job listed as "A/Prof in mathematical biology" than a similarly qualified woman. This is a big issue because academic committees often don't realize exactly what they want from the ideal candidate until they see the applicant pool. Often, great applicants don't fit the job description perfectly, and they get offered the job.
That said, I wouldn't author an open letter to the department requesting them to hire the female applicant. Instead, I'd write a confidential letter to the hiring committee offering strong support for this candidate. The letter should carefully explain why graduate students think she is the best for the position, and why the gender balance and inclusivity of the department has an effect on the department's performance. Most departments would take this letter very seriously, and it could sway the committee towards the candidate in the case where the decision is very close.
Note though that an open letter is not appropriate because many aspects of a job search (in many countries) is confidential and releasing the identity of candidates is a big no-no, and in some cases even illegal (depends on the country).
If they don't hire the female candidate, I think it is absolutely fair to schedule a meeting with the chair of the department (and potentially even higher up the academic administration) to discuss your concerns. They are legitimate. And any department worth a grain of salt would take these concerns seriously.

My main question is is whether it is appropriate for us to additionally express our desire for a woman faculty member.

Let's make it simple: Do express that desire, but put it in a different letter. (And don't send the two together...)
Also, considering the harsh responses you've gotten here, instead of suggesting a sort of a counter-bias, claim that your department currently has a bias which must be corrected. That is, don't sail against the wind, but with it: Counter-bias for women is controversial, but bias in favor of men is unacceptable. Correcting the latter is, in practice, somewhat of the former. I wouldn't make personal accusations in such a letter, but would suggest forming a committee to review and suggest changes to the hiring process.


text:
About to write my PhD thesis and I don't know the basics and fundamentals. I am feeling unworthy of the PhD title. What should I do?
My PhD work is on modeling a 3D printing process using a commercial FEM software. But I am not confident with basics of finite element theory, non linear Finite element analysis to be accurate, which I learnt by self study. My work was mostly application of established models, so I didn’t have to do any numerical work in my research. It's my final year (starting to write my thesis) and I am not happy with my level of expertise. I am freaking out. What do I do? Sad part is I am in 6th year of PhD.

Are you saying that you don't know enough to write the thesis or that you feel like a fraud for writing it without a deeper understanding? Those are quite different problems.

The latter. I feel that even though I have published or done some novel work, I don't feel satisfied with my level of knowledge. I feel as a fraud when writing about it without a deeper understanding.

This sounds like every doctoral student ever.

"I have published or done some novel work". Thank you for your contribution to science in what appears to me a field that will be very important in the coming years. Six years of your life is a lot, and I'm sure the scientific community (and those outside it) will join me in thanking you for commitment---not just in terms of time, but mental energy and sacrifices. Now go get the credit you deserve! Well done, and good luck! :)

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Nobody knows everything. In many fields it is impossible to know everything about that field. In mathematics it was possible for an individual to know everything up through the end of the 19th century, and a few people did. Henri Poincaré was a likely candidate. But after that it soon became impossible as there was just too much. Computer Science has probably passed out of the era where it was possible to know it all, but it was (possibly) somewhere around the end of the 20th century.
There is a psychological effect called Imposter Syndrome in which you don't believe that you are as good as others know you to be. It affects many people, including many academics.
Learning is a life-long activity. I suggest that in the short term you just get on with it and write the thesis, working as you normally do, which I'm sure includes study. In the longer term you can, as you would likely do anyway, work to fill in those bits that you think you are missing.
But don't delay your work now until you think you are ripe. That point may never come, even though you are perfectly capable at each point at which it matters.
The feeling may never go away. But if you know it for what it is, it needn't inhibit you or become debilitating.

for imposter syndrome.  And + for "nobody knows everything".  No man or woman is an island.  If you know where your weaknesses are, when work comes up that requires that expertise, you reach out to your colleague who is strong there.   My stats suck but I know when stats are needed and I get a collaborator with strong stats.    Look at the link for impostor syndrome.  It has some ideas to help people afflicted.

@Willk Obviously "nobody knows everything", but OP is talking about basics of the field in which he/she published already. It's quite likely there will be questions about FEM in his/her defence, where no colleague can help out.

The whole point of PhD study is to confront the unknown. Just go for it!

Actually at the end of my PhD I thought I knew less of the subject than at the start, when I thought I knew everything.

Imposter syndrome - is a good thing, it's a sign of great humility, it also helps keep one's ego at check.

@Bernhard I believe that is the Dunning Kruger effect

@profMamba I don't think it applies. As one increases depth in an aspect of a field, it also increases the breadth of one's understanding of the same field. What changed for Bernhard was his perception of the breadth.

It's not optimal but quite natural that during your PhD you always push forward and only learn what you really need at that moment. I assume you are going to write an introduction and a theory chapter. Use this chance to catch up with what you feel you missed. Do some exercises, work on proofs of important theorems in your field. I guess few weeks of concentrated labour will make you feel much more confident regarding the basics. It will pay off when it's time to defend your thesis!

He actually may want/need to skimp on the theory/intro especially if he is weak on it.  I have a contrarian advice which is to write up all the experimental work first.  Once done, then probably momentum pulls him to add some theory/intro.  But good chance it is workmanlike and not beautiful.

@guest I'm not recommending an order here. I agree that getting started writing is important. The unresolved questions might cause some stomach ache until OP sits down to face them, though.

I think it is the opposite.  He is using asking questions to avoid getting down to business.  The experimental work needs to be written down no matter what.  Having something tangible produced will settle him down.  The guy is six years in.  We are past the dreamy explorational aspects of grad school.  Time to turn the screws.  (Different point of view, but worth considering.)

@guest Maybe I was not clear enough: It's good to start with anything that will be easier to write down. I don't think we disagree on this. But be careful what you assume: We don't know it's experimental work, we don't know OPs gender, we don't know whether he/she has any problems with writing or motivation!

Just write up the details of the applied work you did.  Sure, you see a gap in your fundamental understanding, but so be it.
There are analytical chemists who do good applied work but don't understand all the hairy physics math behind their instruments also.  Sure, ideally they would.  And to some extent they should.  But that's just not the case.
Don't make excuses.  Write up what you did.  Sit down and type.  ;-)

Don't make excuses. Write up what you did. Sit down and type. this is the right, or at least best answer, along with perhaps staying away from talking about writing on the internet.

Some elements you do need for your thesis are:

To be able to identify that you have done something novel
Why it is novel, i.e. understand and articulate what has been done before
Ideally some notion as to why it works.
Where there is room for improvement

So, I suggest you focus on the main story you have to tell and make sure you can defend the arguments presented. That does not require an in-depth understanding of all the foregoing theory, but might well require articulation of the core principles.
If you have a chapter of background material, clearly you need to understand it. You do not need to understand all the related theory work. You might well now see that there are various areas to further study later if you stay in academia.

You say you're about to write your dissertation: do you really know how LaTeX works? Or the TeX that underlies it?  Or the OS of your computer under that? Or do you just know how to use them?  Same applies to your FEM program, or to any tool in any field: you don't need to know how the tool works, internally.or how to build one.  You just need to know how to use it to get results.

In some sense this is right, but in a deeper sense it is not. With TeX, you can easily judge whether you "got the results" you wanted: you just read the output. But (assuming you don't know Arabic, but are a TeX expert) suppose you were given the task of typesetting 100 pages of Arabic text in TeX. Would you be so confident you had "done it right" as you would be for 100 pages of English and math? I doubt it. The same is true of using nonlinear FEM analysis, in my experience - and the worst situation is when something "20% different from expected" looks plausible, but is really total garbage.

A little humility at the start of what may be your first real research project may not be a bad thing. Crossing the bridge from hard problems in textbooks to a research problem can be a difficult journey. With textbook problems, it is at least reasonable to assume that the question makes sense and has an answer. With a research problem it may take a few months before you make sense of the problem, and you don't know whether there is an answer. "If you know what you're doing, how long it will take, or how much it will cost, then you're not doing research."
But you should try to get over feeling "unworthy" of a Ph.D. Presumably, some group of people feels you have the potential to write a decent thesis, or you wouldn't be a position to try. It would be a fine thing if you win
a Nobel Prize for your work, but the objective for now should be less ambitious. You need to find a worthwhile unsolved problem, get to understand what is known about the general area that's relevant, and start figuring out how you can know what's true and what's not. The amazing thing is that it's not usually possible to know how important your discoveries may turn out to be.

But I am not confident with basics of finite element theory

You've got several options
1) Get direction from your current advisor as to how to fill in the gaps
2) Take a class on this topic
3) Get a co-advisor specifically to fill in these gaps

As long as you show you have a general understanding of Finite Element Method and build a story around your application of it, you should be in a strong position to defend your work.
To be more specific - you already mentioned that your work is application of established models. This is absolutely fine if you provide appropriate references. Also, as others have mentioned, you are not expected to know everything so don't be so hard on yourself.

Your adviser's job is to tell you if you are not ready to do this. That is the adviser's job -- we're not even talking about a "psychological  support" role but a simple professional judgement about whether you are capable.
If your adviser cannot even do that, find to another adviser. A good adviser is fact one thing that you cannot do without.

Freaking out might be a healthy feeling at this stage. I am not sure if that helps, but I was in your position once and I got my PhD after three years. I remember telling a friend the same thing as you just said (except the technical details were different), and he told me that everything would be alright because you're feeling that way. I am sure the things you just mentioned are not simple concepts and reaching the level to make novel contributions is not an easy road, but you'll get there eventually.


text:
Advice needed for completing my PhD thesis. Which timeline should I follow?
First of all, I apologize for the nature of this post. I am freaking out inside and I am branching out to seek as much advice as possible.
I am a 4th year PhD student, and I am looking forward to defend my thesis this year. However, I am confused of the timeline I should follow. There are two initial submission deadlines in our university. First in April for defending before August and other in August for defending before December.
What should I do?

Your concerns about meeting the April deadline indicate that you could do a better job by working toward the later deadline. Since your adviser is OK with that, I see no reason to rush for the April deadline.

Is there a reason not to trust the judgement of your adviser?

The goal of the PhD is not to complete a thesis. The goal is to get a job. What type of job are you trying to get and what does your timeline look like for that?

This would be easier to advise you if you told us what field, subfield you are working in.  Give us less scoop than needed to identify you, but the extra info will help with sneaking in tailored advice.  Although much will be general, there can be differences from STEM to "bull", from theory to experiment.  Maybe we sneak you a little domain specific advice along with the general.
My advice is to push for the earlier timeline.  You have the work done (or a decent chunk of it). And you have published before.  Worst comes to worst, you have to delay.  However...I wrote my thesis in 10 days (literally, and not how millenials use literally).  And I am far from a genius.  Yeah, there was a lot of cut and paste.  And my advisor was pissed off (dumped it on him along with the committee).  But I had lots of papers done and a job waiting.  I had really checked the box on doing what is needed for the union card and gotten him lots of ride along coauthors.  It worked out.
No reason to make a big tadoo about the thesis.  WORST comes to worse, you just bail later.  But I would put the pressure on yourself.  Go for April.  That is a ginormous amount of time.  In the corporate world (or God knows as a PI), you will be expected to produce huge amounts of content in much less time.  The "dreamy" part of grad school is over.  Buckle down and get that thesis out and sent to your committee and the "ruler lady".  Do a decent job but really at the end of the day...darned thing is pass fail.  What matters are papers.  If you are a bull major, than maybe it becomes a book, but there is time to worry about that later.
Use MORE chapters than the norm (e.g a chapter per paper plus methods, intro, conclusions).  You will still need to do a little work to format and perhaps abstract intro and methods to separate, joint chapters.  But it is much easier to write a thesis with more chapters and ones that mimic your papers (less synthesis).  [Don't let anyone else know...let it be sneaky advice that I share with you.]
If you are not already familiar with Tex, I recommend to avoid that and use whatever you published the paper in (probably Word).  Same applies to complicated templates.  Write how you did your journal articles.  [The techies here will scream, but anyone to the left of CS/Physics/Math will back me up...don't make your thesis the time you learn to type differently.]
Start a computer file with the name "Thesis rev 1".  Hit save.  Go in and add a title (doesn't matter if it changes later) and add the different sections, chapters (doesn't matter if they change).  Now you are ROLLING!  This is so much easier now with computers than in the day when you hired a typist.  Dump your papers (whole stock) into whichever chapter makes sense.  You are really started now.
Make a schedule and follow it.  Mine was painful (chapter a day).  But you can do a little better.  I guess give your advisor intermediate drafts but don't let the old goat discombobulate your flow.  Push, push.  Imagine you were doing this whole thing on your own.  The cynical truth is you are.

Good luck, peanut.


text:
How do I judge a professor's quality while choosing a PhD?
How do I judge a professor's quality while choosing  a PhD?
I have completed my Masters in Pure Mathematics.
I want to work in fields which involve Algebra,Functional Analysis,Complex Variables.
I also have my own funding to pursue my research.I have passed a qualification exam which will fund my studies for 4 years.
But I have the following questions:

Most of the questions asked here for example How to judge the reputation of a potential advisor or research group for good quality research for PhD? asks to visit the labs.
In Mathematics we don't have any labs.
I searched some Professors working in the areas I have mentioned.
Some of the Professors had great citations in the period 2005-2010 but now they don't get enough citations hardly 1 or 2.
Also should I try to join a reputed University as I believe all professors will have great publications there?
Or should I not judge a Professor on where he/she teaches?
Also it is not possible to visit every Professor personally

In other words I am confused.
I don't understand what to see and what not.
Can you kindly say how I should judge a professor or what factors should be taken into account ?

My previous answer applies verbatim to mathematics, after substituting "advisor" for every instance of "lab" and "PI". — it is not possible to visit every Professor personally — No, but unless you are the next Terry Tao, it is possible to visit the professors in every department that actually offers you admission.

Regarding How to judge the reputation of a potential advisor or research group for good quality research for PhD?, I disagree: this very good answer do not ask you to visit the lab. Just talking to current/former PhD students. What you can do remotely.

Citation count is not a particularly reliable way to evaluate research quality in mathematics.

Disclaimer: My answer rather aims at underlining that judging which Professor is the best for you depends on your long-term objectives.

You might want to choose your supervisor for two reasons. They sometimes do not align (i.e., it's either-or).

Choosing a Professor for during the PhD: You might want to choose a good supervisor for the time you are PhD student. In such case, you are looking for someone who has already supervised PhD, has time, has research focuses aligning with your research topic/motivations, etc. This will ensure you have a "nice time" during your PhD, with enough support and guidance. Talking with former PhD students might help. Note that in this case, the institution (in terms of courses, funding, support, etc.) matters too.
Choosing a Professor for after the PhD: However, sometimes, what you focus on is the next step. It may vary from one field to the other (I don't know about math at all), but I know first-hand that sometimes, what matter the most for getting the position is recommendation letters (more precisely, who wrote them). Having the right (meaning "well established and acknowledged, with large network) connexions helps you getting visiting PhD/PostDoc positions more easily. Don't get me wrong: you won't get those positions if you are not doing good research. However, when you have reached a certain "enough good" level  (except in some rare case where you're extraordinarily brilliant), my opinion is that the quality of your work matters less than who recommends you — for junior researcher position, at least. So in such case, working with a Professor that has an above-average impact factor, published in renowned journals, and, most importantly, have "sent" PhD students in prestigious institutions (what they — the Professor — can easily do because their best buddy is PI there) and "landed" former students in cool positions is what you are looking for. Even if they might be less good mentors during the PhD. So track where are currently working their former students.

In both cases, look for a Professor that is interested in what you are doing.
Remember also that it's just like houses or spouses: there is no such thing as a ideal positions. You want to find the best "good-enough PI" that would accept you, even if they are not perfect in some aspects.
Finally, please consider that you are choosing a position that will significantly impact your life for the next 3–6 years. Don't neglect your personal needs/requirements (a very good position is not worth anything — in my opinion).

Ideally, we are not looking for compromising between having a great researcher (PI) and being a nice, supportive (PI). The best thing is asking the alumni who would tell you honest judgement. I have been working with relatively good research but was toxic and there is no point behind it, so you have to be careful. As you may know, there are great professors in the field, but they are not nice at all, this is important advice, although having connections, they still block you, I don't know why, but don't cling with that kind of supervisors. Citations are not a solo calibre.

@Monkia You are right: ideally a good PhD supervisor should be good for both needs. My only point here is that I see 2 separate needs, that translate into 2 separate set of "requirements". But of course, you're welcome to want to meet both needs at the same time — just adds up requirements. I don't think they are exclusive one to another, yet I think it might be more difficult to find someone meeting them.

Go off their paper importance.  And then your impression of them, based on conversation if possible, or popular writings.  In addition to their math skill, you will need someone that is a good advisor.  In particular ask previous or current students about the reputation for getting people done quickly (or at least not the converse) and for getting people into good jobs.  And for personal relations.
I think this might be a little less important in math than in the sciences.  You're going to discover your own theorems regardless.  It's not like you need an active lab group.  As long as the fellow still has prestige in his field you should be fine.  Also often older advisors are kinder.
Going to a good university is key.  You need to include it in the calculus.  People will consider where you were able to get into.  You still need a good advisor too--don't go with a jerk or a weak one at a name school.  But I advise against going with a big fish in a small pond. In addition, peers will be better at the name school.  Also likely it is in a bigger town (more fun).  You also have better fallback options for other advisors.  More people come to talk there.  You might even collaborate with other professors.  The undergrads are smarter.  It's just better all around.
Be selective.  Even if you miss some you still learn just from going through the process (what you care about, what are factors, etc.)  If there is a key, key one, reach out by telephone or email or mail.  Obviously let the person know that he is a key one, not just you trying to talk to all, so he gives you the time.

Caveat:  I am not a mathematician.