text:
How do you come to terms with the fact that you might never be among the best in your research community?
I am currently a PhD student advised by a new (and awesome, in my opinion) theoretical computer scientist in the field of optimization. This was my dream ever since I took a class on convex optimization a few years ago during my MS.
However, I don’t have a math or CS background. My master’s and industry experience have both been in applied signal processing. When I recently looked at the kind of grad students who work in my current choice of research area, I realized the level of competition I am up against.
These are all from amazing institutes around the world and had been the brightest kids in their colleges, the ones with medals in olympiads, top Putnam scores, etc. I am from a mid-tier college in my country and never won an award for excelling in math/algorithms.
How do you come to terms with the fact that you might be doing research in what you love with an amazing mentor, but you’ll just never be the best in even your research community? How's that not discouraging?

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

The Delphic Oracle said that Socrates was the wisest person in Athens. Not because he knew everything, but because he alone was prepared to admit his own ignorance rather than pretend to know something he did not.

Watch this: https://www.ted.com/speakers/carol_dweck

Can't imagine why one may want to be "the best" in one particular thing instead of being good or reasonably good in many things. So I'm not the best to answer such a question.

If every swimmer were to compete with the latest 20 year old Olympic gold medalist, they would soon give up. That's why we have different leagues. They provide more relevant frames of reference to compare different athletes. Thus you need to:
Shift the frame.
Adjusting a bad frame:
You are a PhD student who completed some regular college and an outsider to your field. But you are comparing yourself with your supervisor and with "the brightest kids" in the world and, what is more, with scientist who specialized in your field from the get-go. How can that not be disappointing?
What about: You are an up-and-coming young researcher with real-world experience and a background that is not the usual run-of-the-mill in the field you are working in. You have an amazing supervisor who trusts your work and you are at least as successful as the other PhD students in your cohort. Perhaps you are the only one from your college who made it to graduate school in the last couple of years. You still have plenty of time as a researcher to develop your own profile according to your interests. Don't be fooled by the impostor syndrome.
Dropping a bad frame:
Never mind what I said in the beginning. Science is not a competition -- at least it shouldn't be.
If you're doing research mainly to outcompete your colleagues, to improve your social status, to feel pleased with yourself: you're doing it wrong. Then you are extrinsically motivated, and this is neither sustainable nor does it make you happy. Have you ever delved into a problem and forgotten to drink or eat until the sun went down? Have you ever felt deeply frustrated because you just couldn't wrap your head around some strange finding, only to realize later that it completely makes sense when you look at it from a different angle? Experienced the enthusiasm that came with that discovery? Do you deeply feel that you have to understand this? Then you know the feeling of flow that really only comes from intrinsic motivation. Forget the competition; enjoy the game.

@astronat Yup, Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi even describe how focusing too much on their competitors, athletes risk to impede flow and thereby impair their performance (Flow in Sports, Champaign, 1999, p. 115).

+1 for flow and Have you ever delved into a problem and forgotten to drink or eat until the sun went down? Actually, I forgot to sleep until the sunrise.

I think "to feel pleased with yourself" is not an extrinsic nor intrinsic motivation. It depends on what makes us feel pleased with ourselves. And maybe it is one of the biggest motivation of each person in his/her life.

@Hossein that's true, but here I meant a rather narcissist need. That's probably a big motivator but it won't make us as reliably happy as self-actualization, since it relies on external confirmation and thus curtails our autonomy. Could have been more clear perhaps.

Maybe one should add that not only looking forward, but also looking backwards (to all the people that don't have a Phd...) helps staying grounded.

That is true, if you swim just for fun, but not for your living. As soon as you want an attractive position, or need funding for an expensive project science is a competition.

@JonasStein of course, there's no denying it is (like many jobs); hence: 'at least it shouldn't be'. However, OP needs to focus less on the competition if they're so concerned about not being the best. I thought in this case it's ok to use hyperbole.

This is an awesome answer, but I just wanted to add one more point. Remember that contributing to a great team is also important. You have different skills and a different perspective, never underestimate the power of thinking in a different way when everyone else is too similar to each other to make progress.

I would add one more comment about group think.  Innovation is often born from differences in opinion which leads to more research.  When we all believe the same things because we were all trained the same way, we often stifle innovation.  Embrace the differences you have as they allow you to adjust the frame; considering things others may not.  You may still be wrong, but sometimes questioning the status quo leads to greater leaps in progress.

I loved your response. I recently got a book written by my favourite YouTuber who, through seven years of hard, has now attained a lot of success, and one of my favourite quotes in it was (paraphrasing): "Be the best version of yourself". Your answer explains this philosophy very well. Thanks!

I got a problem which I am working on for 12 years and I can't have enough of it :)

The vast majority of people working in academia are not the best. That is just a logical consequence of the fact that only one person can be the best and all others are not. Even if you relax the definitions by subdividing all fields and defining "the best" to be a group of individuals in a very specific sub-sub-sub-field rather than one individual, the group who is not the best must be significantly larger than the group who is the best in order for the concept of being the best to be meaningful.
A lot of work that needs to be done to move a field forward is just checking and re-checking, applying a result to different contexts, etc., etc. That does not require super intelligence, but is still vital. Identifying with my sub-field, and doing vital work to move that field forward is what motivates me.
Also remember that as you move up, you are entering an increasingly selective group: There is no shame in not being the most intelligent person of the world.

This answer perpetuates the mythological notion of "best."  Even within very specific subfields, a linear ordering is not usually possible.  Denounce the myth!

I generally agree, but would like to disagree with this: "the group who is not the best must be significantly larger than the group who is the best in order for the concept of being the best to be meaningful." The whole point of a PhD is to become the very best in some very specific sub-field or problem or question. In fact, it does not take much research before you are the premier expert in the very particular question that you are considering. For any paper, the writers of that paper are the best people in the world in terms of understanding the material of that paper.

So I think fundamentally the OP misunderstands what it means to be the best. It certainly isn't a matter of intelligence. Rather, it's about specialization. Perhaps the OP's real worry is that they will not have much of a practical impact or influence on fellow researchers (hopefully, with a good mentor, this should not be a concern).

@6005, I would vote for something like this statement as an answer.

How do you come to terms with the fact that you might be doing research in what you love with an amazing mentor, but you’ll just never be the best in even your research community? How's that not discouraging?

The same way that a police officer comes to terms with the fact that they'll just never be the best police officer. Or a doctor. The same way that a business owner comes to terms with the fact that they'll just never be the richest person on the planet.
There's nothing to come to terms with, because "being the best" isn't the goal and "the best" isn't even a meaningful concept. People enter academia to study the subject that they love and to share their knowledge with others who want to know about it. None of that has anything to do with being "the best" because it's not a competitive pursuit. Sure, there are competitive aspects, such as getting jobs or studentships or funding, but job applications are competitive in any walk of life. And even if you ask ultra-competitive people, like athletes, they'll say that they're motivated by loving their job and wanting to be the best they can be. Almost nobody says, "I play sport X because I want to be world champion."

'I play sport X because I want to be a world champion' -- Tyson or Bolt or Federer  or Phelps would disagree.  Then again, you said 'almost nobody'.  Perhaps the last sentence should be 'Almost nobody says, "... world champion", except world champions'.

+1 because I like the sentiment.  But:  "People enter academia to study the subject that they love and to share their knowledge with others who want to know about it."  A few years back, I went around and did a bunch of personal interviews across departments and locations to determine why people went into academia and down their various paths.  There was less commonality than I'd initially expected; love of their field was perhaps one of the more common reasons, but no single reason seemed to be shared by a majority.

@OldGuy But "almost nobody except world champions" is still "almost nobody". Even within the realms of professional sport, most people don't get close to being world champion. Anyway, I don't want to make a big deal of this: it was just the impression I've got from listening to interviews with athletes and certainly isn't based on any scholarship. As long as you don't think it's wildly inaccurate, I'll just leave it or maybe add a few more weasel words.

@Prof.SantaClaus: actually, from what I know about Federer you are wrong in his case: he says he plays because he enjoys it. Of course he enjoys playing great, but it is a commonly held opinion among Tennis commenters that the longevity of Federer has much to do with his focus on the game rather than on the competition. It probably helped him through his less dominating periods (which now lasts for 7 years).

I've upvoted both the answers by Maarten Buis and henning, but I want to highlight and make even more clear and blunt a principle that one of the answers touches on and I personally adhere to:
Stop trying to keep up with the Joneses and start keeping up with the @convexityftws.
All kidding aside:

Be your best self.
~Rose Voisk, 1948 Olympian

The idea is that yes, we may be in competition with others, but at the same time, we must be even more in competition with ourselves.

The principle is competing against yourself. It's about self-improvement, about being better than you were the day before.
~Steve Young, Former NFL Quarterback

It's the secret of great athletes such as those above, but as Ms. Voisk affirms, it can also be applied to "every field, not just in sport but in everything we do."
And if you feel like these people are out of your league, then how about out of the mouth of a Paralympian with muscular dystrophy?

I am my biggest competitor.
~Yip Pin Xiu, Three-time Paralympic Gold Medalist and One-time IPC Gold Medalist

And wait until you really get the hang of it and you can start getting into some friendly cooperative competition, co-opetition.
Then you'll really be on the ball, and then, who knows. Perhaps "being among the best in your research community" won't be so far out of reach after all.

Can you explain "start keeping up with the convexityftws"? You imply it's a joke but I don't get it. Or is it just a typo?

@user2390246, heh, the joke is that the OP, convexityftws, should only compete with the OP-self, convexityftws, instead of trying to compete with the Joneses.

Ah, right, I'd not spotted OP's username. Thanks!

OPs doubts come from his desires to be the best self. My gf is the same, she'd get depressed over every other weirdo that's slightly ahead of her. They just want to be the best, better than themselves, and to be the best, even better than yourself you have to defeat the best. But that's not always possible.

@ИвоНедев, although, as Joan of Arc says, "All battles are first won or lost, in the mind."

“There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.” - Hemingway

@rhombidodecahedron, nice one. I shall have to remember that one for the future :).

@user2390246, I've added an "@" in front of "convexityftws" to indicate that it's a username :).

But you can never really be "your best self" - the goal post will keep shifting; and "competing against yourself" means an endless competition. So -1 in my book.

TL;DR
It really isn't important to be the best,
as most people in the world aren't the best at their jobs,
and yet many of them can choose to be happy about it.
My story
I empathize with you because when I was a PhD student,
just as you did, I had dreams of grandeur.
I would publish amazing papers,
get a job in one of the best universities,
give amazing talks, etc.
Unfortunately, my dreams didn't come true.
My PhD research projects did not go as smoothly as I wished,
and I graduated one year later than I had planned.
Nevertheless, I did graduate and find a tenure track job.
Along the way, I got married and had kids.
Being a father has changed my priorities,
and I would say that I realized that contentment
is much more important than achievement.
What do I mean?
A billionaire could still feel unhappy because he/she wants more,
on the other hand a homeless person could be full of joy
because he/she is grateful for what he/she has.
Why am I content?
I am content because:

I enjoy my research
I am reasonably good at my research
I and some other people find my research meaningful
I am paid reasonably well for research and teaching

My advice for the OP
Paraphrasing what you wrote:

The grad students who work in my current choice of research area... are all from amazing institutes around the world and had been the brightest kids in their colleges, the ones with medals in olympiads, top Putnam scores, etc. I am from a mid-tier college in my country and never won an award for excelling in math/algorithms.

In my opinion,
you shouldn't be too hard on yourself
that you didn't take part in olympiads.
I say this as someone who did get a medal in an olympiad (the IMO).
In fact, someone who got a PhD from the same institution as myself
is a much more successful in math-related research than I am,
even though he did not take part in any olympiads.
(I suspect he probably would have been good at the olympiads,
but he just never knew he was good at math until he got into university.)
I would say that to succeed at olympiads,
you need to be smart and work hard,
but you also need to grow up in an environment
where you are exposed to information about olympiads
and you need to have the opportunity to train for them.
I would use the analogy that earning a medal at an olympiad
is like being certified to have a high IQ score ---
it suggests that you could do high-quality math/CS research,
but it definitely does not guarantee
that you will do high-quality math/CS research.
In short, my advice is:
Don't look at your competition,
how many awards they are winning,
how many papers they are writing,
just do your best to work with your awesome advisor,
and to do the best research and write the best papers that you can!
Related:
In a separate answer,
I explain how you do learn some problem solving skills
in your preparation for the IMO,
however, real academic research in math or theoretical computer science
is quite different from olympiad math.

Being the best researcher isn't about having gone to the best school, having won the best prizes at Olympiads, or being the most intelligent. Sure, they are factors (intelligence is useful, and success before the PhD correlates somewhat to success during the PhD), but they are not the only factor at all.
There are lots of other factors that matter:

Motivation: lots of smart kids do a PhD by default, and then don't do well, because they don't like research, or they don't like what they are doing, and all the intelligence in the world will not make a PhD write itself. You say that you love your research and that it was your dream to work on what you work on: I think this is a great sign, as not many PhD students would say that.
Tenacity: being intelligent and being hardworking do not correlate so much. Further, Olympiads-type exercises that you do before the PhD are like sprints, whereas research is like a marathon. If you work very hard and reliably, you may end up achieving more than some smart people who are just goofing off most of the time.
Adequate supervision, an extrinsic which you say you have, and which is very helpful and motivating, but that not everybody manages to get.
Writing skills: if you like to write stuff and are good at it, it will help you a lot to write papers, whereas again there are smart people who don't express themselves clearly or don't like to write, so they have lots of ideas but never get around to writing them up.
Social skills, to some extent: someone with very high intelligence but zero charisma (or who is socially unpleasant) may miss a lot of opportunities that would be afforded to someone who is charismatic even if less intelligent.

See also a better written post about the qualities that matter in PhD students: http://matt.might.net/articles/successful-phd-students/
So I don't think that your comparison to other students is fair, if it is just based on the criteria that you gave. I have no idea how well you perform of course, but I would say, just try your best. :)
[I would worry more about the fact that people from top schools may get better opportunities later for the same PhD research. As research is very competitive, coming from a less prestigious background before the PhD may be a slight handicap for later. However, good research should quickly make up for it: once you can compare people based on their track record as researchers, you usually stop caring about where they come from.]
So I think the reasonable question is, "how to deal with the fact that you are not currently the best in your research community, and probably never will be?". Not "... that you never will be", because usually it's hard to tell.

〈HUMOR〉 It is discouraging. You are a loser. Go sell ice-cream instead. 〈/HUMOR〉
Now more seriously. You are in a great place with the folks who are better than you. This is the best situation you can find yourself in. If feeling inferior bothers you so much, you could try to overcome such thoughts by trying to be the best in a nearby field. E.g., you will create or contribute to a phenomenal, usable, and useful implementation of an algorithm which folks would be really eager to use. Or you will be giving excellent, 1-alpha-class talks on well-known material. Or you will be great at acquiring research funds. Or something else. Be the best in some area in which you have a chance to win. Don't compete in areas in which you have no chance to win — there, simply learn from the winners.

Anybody can be best in a narrow field .I have an overachieving brother who was /is overall better .But I stuck to my Knitting and can be best in some things .

It is not "the best situation" to constantly be the weakest, least intelligent, least accomplished, and to some extent looked down on. For many (most) people, peer recognition of ability and worth is a significant factor of emotional well-being.

I have come to a similar thought as you have mentioned.  The feeling of perceived inferiority can be very strong and somewhat academically-debilitating (sometimes leading to counter-productive thoughts as 'why am I even bothering').
I am PhD graduate from mid-tier rural university in Australia, the first experience I had in my research area was through my MSc and then the PhD. I am self taught in the programming part - I have never achieved any awards and in terms of employment I have just achieved an Adjunct position from one university and a part time (1 day per week) research fellowship.
Time has eluded me, as I have to do 2 more jobs to pay the bills etc. So I have only 2 dozen publications to my name over 4 years.
All this working with remarkable academics with dozens (and even hundreds) of papers... but:

a couple of the papers of mine are considered to be cornerstone papers (dozens of citations each).
Recently, I am being approached by many academics who wish to collaborate on similar projects.

One of the academics I work with, someone with almost 300 publications (including books) summed it up for me when I asked a similar question to him - perseverance is key
Give it time, keep persevering and chase the dream, not the competition.

Academia is just means to an end, not an end by itself. As we study to learn the basics, to learn how to learn, to do research, etc., we have a system of incentives like a teacher's praise, a good grade, a citation of our publication by a peer, and ultimately a prestigious prize or reward. None of those things are real goals, they are just incentives to help us get through. Once you have learned enough, you go on and try to fix the world's problems. When you work improves the lives of people just a tiny bit, that will feel like a reward greater than any of the incentives your received throughout your academic development.

Keep in mind that there's virtually always someone "better" no matter who you are. Are the "best" people in your community better than, for example, Alan Turing or Albert Einstein?
It was a huge deal when Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile, but other people have done a mile faster since then. Does that mean that Roger Bannister should drive himself nuts until he does better than the people who beat his record?
In fact, a lot of world records have eventually been broken, so you could ask the same about them.
The best thing to do is to let go of comparison. To learn more about that, I suggest reading The Gifts of Imperfection by Brene Brown, who's one of the better authors on the topic.
You may also want to look into the idea of Unconditional Self-Acceptance, which implies that you don't really need to be "the best" or to hold a particular position in the "pecking order" in order to be able to accept yourself. This is particularly important given that your position in the "pecking order" will likely be changing constantly.
Besides, as others have indicated, the concept of "the best" in this kind of work is remarkably amorphous anyway, so it's not a reasonable standard to judge yourself against. Who's a "better" scientist - Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein? How would you even define or measure that?

You're never going to be good enough
If you're struggling with feelings like falling short of being a leader in a competitive field, you're probably already a fairly competitive individual.  If anything, that feeling of inadequacy is evidence of your drive to push forward and do better.
But, you're never going to win.  Never.
Sure, perhaps one day you might discover some world-shaking truth.  Maybe the Nobel committee will grovel for the privilege of throwing medals at your feet, and the world might come to celebrate your name and deeds.  But no matter what, no matter what you achieve, you will never be good enough.  You will always stand in the shadow of what you dream of becoming.
Your "betters" are figureheads.  You're not envious of them; there're merely symbolic of the ideal that you chase.  And if you come to stand in their shoes, you'll find them inadequate.  If you surpass them, you'll forget that they ever meant anything.  Just like that A+ you got on that spelling test in 1st grade; remember being proud of that?  'course not.
It's fine...
Not posting this answer to provide you with any personal comfort or reassurance.  That isn't even a particularly enviable thing to seek.
Keep seeing yourself as imperfect; keep striving.  In the end, as you find yourself a failure for all of your mistakes and shortcomings, the world'll be better off for the shining star that you actually were.
...maybe
Unless it's really bugging you.  Obviously I like the hardcore critical approach to things, but it's probably not for everyone.

I will add to all the answers by saying that the fact that you consider yourself to be unlike the people you consider 'wiz-kids' can actually be a positive thing. There's a lot of discoveries that could be considered to be 'low-hanging fruit' but are actually extremely important, and would have been completely overlooked by the 'wiz-kids' for looking 'not-complicated-enough', or for not following the usual expected recipes.
There is enough high-level incremental obfuscated research already. Science is in dire need of fresh, unusual, simple approaches. Here's where you might come in, especially given your more diverse experience. Don't be fooled into thinking simple isn't groundbreaking; if anything, most often the opposite applies. Just dare to follow your ideas in your own individual style, and only good can come of it.

Maybe flip the question over? Why would it matter if you are or aren't, and why do you feel being "best" is important?
One way to view this is that you are in a world of 7 billion people. Almost without exception, and almost in every field of work or hobby endeavour, everyone will be more capable than some, and less capable than some. That's been the status quo throughout your life, will continue to be so, and is so for almost everyone on the planet, for all of human history. If "not being the best" is a disincentive then its going to be a pretty universal one. Best know that and consider why you might choose such an incentive to nail yourself to in the first place, and if its really a good choice for you. Is it all that keeps you going, in all areas of life?
What would you say to your best friend who said that they won't be a parent and have children, unless they can feel they are the best parent on the planet and no other parent does it as well, because they can't handle if someone else could possibly parent better than them? Is being "best" really needed and the only thing able to motivate you to do all you can and to enjoy what you do, find happiness doing it, and fulfillment in what comes of it? Putting it in other contexts like that may show just how much it really is a choice, how unhelpful and sometimes harmful it can be as a choice, and that other valid choices and measures can and do exist.
And if it isn't the only motivator for all that you do, then what else does?

There will be a day when you don't have a teacher or a professor. This is important to prepare some students for as they otherwise risk getting rather lost when they finally graduate and realize there is no list of correct answers, no grades and no golden stars on their papers any longer. Many a student have had a tough time after graduation because they were not prepared for this fact.

Try and find happiness in the work itself and not so much through validation. Most researchers will at some point reach a level of specialization where they don't have a teacher who can teach them more, because there is no one who has worked that much on the same things as they have.

find happiness in the work itself - something I consider of the most important and understated virtues in research.

Leonard Adleman invented the genetic computer.
Hand the paper to a computer science researcher, and they'll find the CS to be really easy, and say "I don't know
The computer science in the paper was basic stuff.  The biology stuff was basic stuff.
He was an expert computer scientist who decided to study some biology, and wrote a paper that few understood, simply because he knew two different fields.
Hard work isn't enough.  But neither is smarts.  And neither is both.  Hard work and smarts and luck together.

I suspect that you are one of the best.
Look at it this way:

the best want to work with you (your advisor)
most of the time the best want to work with the best

Maybe you have compensating factors, that when you look more widely or less rigidly, make you a peer - to the best.

At least you will never be perfectly Average.
Just as it is somewhat impossible to be that ideal average of a researcher (Joe Nothing-special), it is likewise impossible to achieve that ideal of becoming some other preordained best in someone else's field. Just be the best in a field of your own choosing. It is much easier to be a big fish in a small pond (or niche of a bigger pond).
There is a story (probably apocryphal) of doctor who wanted to become an international specialist, so studied the diseases of the belly-button to help that focus (navel gazing with attitude). You only need 33 bits of entropy to be unique (the best in the world) anyway, https://33bits.org/about/

It's OK not to be the world's best.
Nobel prizes honor disciplines, but they do not in a vague and general sense say that e.g. physics is a good thing. Rather, they pick out (usually) one representative, and give a compliment to physics as a whole.
At least on present terms, there is not going to be a Nobel prize for bilking seniors out of their nest eggs. Even if the Nobel prize parody gave sarcastic honors to 419 scammers.
A Nobel prize compliments a community of research, but instead of a general and faceless way, they give excellence in a particular field a concrete face. But a Nobel prize in physics is in no sense a dig at every community member save the individual recognized as laureate. If a fields has a Nobel prize, that's a compliment to all true members.
(N.B. For mathematics, substitute "Fields medal" for "Nobel prize.")

There's a major flaw in your thinking. Research is a team sport. Whether you're "the best" is mostly a factor of social acceptance (aka, popularity), with only a slight correlation to above average competency. The ones often considered "the best" may or may not be above average competency, but they are all popular because of some single discovery, their personality, prevalence in the lecture/conference circuit, or a book/paper they wrote two decades ago. Whatever good you do in research will be from persistence and consistency. Continually provide good work and do your part. Some days you'll feel like the hero, some days the damsel. Most days, you're somewhere in between. But when your team comes together, standing on the shoulders of the ones before you, together you all can be "the best".

You have got a lot of answers. Here is my 2 cents.
First of all, as a PhD, you are comparing yourself to some of the most committed, intelligent, and passionate people there are. it is a given that competition will be very rough.
Second, looking at where successful researchers come from (institution, country...) and losing motivation because you are not coming from quite as fancy places is very similar to looking kids with rich fathers and losing your motivation in life in general. Academia is just as unfair as any other aspect of life.
- How to deal with this unfair or handicapped start?
You need to work your ass off and focus on your strengths when it comes to building your career. Learn as much you can from different but related disciplines. Develop hands-on skills, if it is something valued or sought after in your field. Be sociable, likable. If you know an employer who values a particular thing, being a hardworker for example, don't say you are a hardworker. Show that you are hardworker.
Just be the best that you can be with a positive look on life and never give up. Because, I truly believe that the most successful people in this field are not the most intelligent ones, but the ones that have unyielding perseverance.
- Am I just talking out of my butt?
I am at a similar position. It took me far longer than average to finish my PhD (7 years) due to several reasons. I had two colleagues quit during my time without conducting an ounce of research. We were supposed to be working as a team. Instead, I was forced work completely alone in a multi-disciplinary research field. Like, literally alone, no one to get guidance from for lab methods. I am really shocked that I didn't blow up a lab during the early years of my PhD. I have okay amount of journals but compared to other people in my field, I am in trouble.
So I focused on my hands-on experience in the lab and my multi-disciplinary working capacity when looking for postdoc and industry jobs. I had to develop those skills blood and sweat, but they are highly sought for in my field. And very recently I was able to land a postdoc position which I cannot wait to start. The principle investigator of the new group is from Stanford. Her other two postdocs are from top 30 universities in the world (QS ratings). I am from a 200+ ranked university. But The professor happened to need someone who can work with multiple disciplines and conduct hand on experiments. She didn't want just anybody as long as they are from a fancy university.
TLDR: Focus on your strengths, be very good at a few things that are highly sought in your field, be knowledgeable enough at several disciplines, stay positive (people can smell stress!), try to be the best that you can be, persevere (honestly, this is the number 1 quality of a researcher, you cannot give up in research).

What counts are the results you have obtained. Even if you're the dumbest of them all, if you find an interesting results and get it published, you'll have been the first person that has ever lived on this planet to have found that result. This is then analogous to you being the first successful climber of, say, Mount Everest. Many other people have climbed more mountains than you? Yes, but none of them have managed to climb that particular mountain you have climbed. So, even from the point of view of competition (and I agree here with the other answerers that this perspective isn't all that useful in academia in practice for many reasons), it's not the same as in sports where different competitors are trying to out-compete each other.

"Even if you're the dumbest of them all, if you find an interesting results and get it published" Sorry, but I'm confused: given that many, many people never find and publish interesting results, how could such a person be "the dumbest of them all"?

@PeteL.Clark A requirement to get a Ph.D is that all the results in the thesis must have been published in peer reviewed journals. Now, this will likely involve work done together with the advisor, but you will be able to claim at least some of the credits for the results.

"A requirement to get a Ph.D is that all the results in the thesis must have been published in peer reviewed journals." No, this is not a requirement in (e.g.) any math department in the United States.  E.g. I got my PhD in 2003 and published my first paper in 2005.  Less than half of all math PhDs publish papers.  And since not every PhD student gets a PhD, presumably "the dumbest of them all does not."  Finally: claiming some credit for the results is not the same as finding interesting results....

...My point is that the claim "Everyone finds and publishes interesting results" is obviously false.  In fact, many people only find results that were already known to others and/or viewed by them as totally routine and uninteresting. I can't read your first sentence in any other way than "Even the worst students can do something good."  Sorry, but it's not true. It is not my intent to be discouraging, but I feel that being counterfactually encouraging is not helpful.

@PeteL.Clark I think mathematics is a more difficult subject for finding new results compared to most other subjects where it's a lot easier because new research areas come into existence regularly that can be approached to newcomers (in math the new research areas tend to be difficult subjects requiring many years of specialization).

@PeteL.Clark  I strongly disagree with your Referee report on my posting. Pointing to the US system where you can get a Ph.D without any publications in peer reviewed publications is not a valid counterargument, because in most other countries publication is a requirement for at least the hard sciences. Also taking "dumbest of them all" literally, and analyzing my answer as if it is a mathematical proof of a theorem, C'mon, this is not the math-StackExchange!

In fact less than half of all PhDs are in the hard sciences.  (Note also that the OP is in a branch of mathematics.)  "analyzing my answer as if it is a mathematical proof of a theorem" You mean, logically?  I have found that this is the best way to analyze things, so I will not apologize for it.  If you don't want to be misunderstood, please feel free to reword your answer.

There's a difference between being the first to climb Mount Everest and being the first to hike up Mount Washington, though.

@henning Yes, but note this quote from just one of the possible international journal Ph.D students are requires to publish in: "Physics Letters B ensures the rapid publication of important new results in particle physics, nuclear physics and cosmology." A result that leads to a publication will always be something to be proud of, in my field at least. Also I have seen a Ph.D students with a mental handicap get his degree, so it's possible to get there even with impaired mental capabilities. Do not underestimate the power of the human brain.

I don't know whether or not this answer is accurate for some fields, but it is certainly not accurate for mathematics in the U.S., for example.


text:
No luck with postdoc hunting after PhD. Will things change with a major paper out?
During my PhD (defended in Fall 2016), I developed a new microscopy technique, which allows investigating the internal structure of materials non-destructively and in 3D using neutrons. The work was technique development \ proof of concept, and I wrote my thesis the old way: as a book, also because I did not publish along the way. I guess that is the main reason why all the postdoc applications (about 20) and fellowship (about 5) I submitted were rejected.
The paper presenting the work I did will be soon submitted to a journal of the Nature group. I am the first author and there will be about 20 co-authors. After submitting, I plan to upload the draft to arXiv, so that during the editorial process people can see the work I did.
Basing on your experience, having a paper out (first on arXiv and then hopefully on the Nature website) does change a lot how people judge a postdoctoral application? Do you have any tips on how to maximize the impact of the paper? After that many failures, I feel a bit discouraged to continue applying.
Thanks for your help!
In case it might be helpful: the work I did was at the intersection between computer science, physics and materials science. I am looking for postdocs combining computer science with biology or physics.

A new publication will not hurt but it's still just one work. Unfortunately, on paper, quantity is still more impressive than quality unless whoever reads your CV is familiar with the work or is willing to read your publications. In your case, you may need to demonstrate how much effort your PhD work required.

How do you suggest to demonstrate the effort? Is it enough to write that I developed a technique from scratch?

I can connect you with my professor who just read your question and showed interest with the case and willing to know more about your findings and your CV. He is offering a Postdocs positions in Bioinformatics.

I am having a similar problem - but I am 3 years past completing my PhD, and have had RA, Adjunct and a part time research fellow in somewhat related fields. I have 14 papers and 2 conference proceedings... am still looking...

@Krebto: that's quite a coincidence ;-) How can I contact you?

You have no publication so far?

None except for my various theses

@Krebto you can see my work here: https://goo.gl/4rg6ud

In this day and age, 25 rejections is not a shocking number.  Just remember that and keep applying. // Find people to collaborate with.  With your multi-disciplinary background, your best bet at this stage might be to diversify -- i.e. market yourself as a versatile researcher who can contribute to a project's code base while also doing collaborative original research resulting in publications.

Think about it this way: What would make things different after your paper is out?

You'd be a person who has published a paper in a prestigious venue.
More people will read about your work (in that paper and through it, elsewhere)

No. 1 will likely help to some extent - perhaps even enough to secure a post-doctoral position. But I think the key is no. 2; and publishing a paper is just one way to get people to know about your work and its importance. If you have a clear idea of what you want to be doing, you don't just "submit applications". You talk to relevant researchers in groups which could use your expertise and input, and make a pitch - for a collaboration, for a visit, and possibly for employment. The fact that you made 20 applications makes me guess that for most of them were somewhat generic: You noticed a posting and mailed/email your application. Try to find a researcher who would not pick you among applicants, but rather just offer you work because s/he believes you would help their lab and their research.
Sorry for being a bit vague - I'm from a different academic field; but I think my point is valid for life scientists as well.

I am not in your field, but I imagine the more publications you can have on your CV when you apply for post-docs, the stronger your application will be. Don't be discouraged with the rejections - you cannot get a post-doc if you don't reapply and with a stronger CV you may have more options available to you. However, I suggest working on additional manuscripts or other products that can further strengthen your CV in the meantime. Good luck!

My story is similar to yours - I am 3 years past the completion of my PhD (physics - radiation, instrumentation, semiconductors), and I have not been successful (as yet) in getting a full time postdoc.  Currently, I have 3 theses (Honours, Masters and PhD), 14 published papers and 2 conference proceedings (and a number in the pipeline).
I work part time in an unrelated field (to pay the bills etc), so my time is limited.
However, getting to my point - in that time I have made contact with many academics, in that process, I have been able to become involved in many projects, leading to

collaborative papers
instrumentation programs
some funded RA work and
a part time research fellowship

These have served to strengthen not only my CV, but strengthen my research focus interests.  In that time, my research credentials have grown with the growing 'evidence' of papers and tools.
I have been rejected for postdocs more times than I care to remember, but I have always found that there is interesting research around that one can be involved in.  To be honest, I have and do 'enjoy the ride' and are still applying for postdoc opportunities.
When I first started to apply (and receive rejections), I was told that a way of looking at it was to consider a rejection as an opportunity to find something else, possibly better.
I really wish you the best with your search, enjoy the ride!

Possibly you're getting rejections at this point because it's been too long.
Most postdoc listings I see in my (non-physics) area stipulate that the candidate must have earned their Ph.D. no more than three years ago.  Have you tried applying for non-postdoc positions?

@zibadawatimmy that's saddening!  Yes, I have applied for non-postdoc positions - particularly industry based.

Within materials physics or materials science, it is very unlikely to obtain a postdoc in a developed country without publishing multiple papers during the PhD.  I would expect three first author papers.
I have seen a postdoc applicant hired who had written three papers but not published them.  However, they were hired at a lower rank, not as a postdoc.  I have also seen someone hired with one paper accepted, but this was in a less developed country, and the paper was accepted to Nature.  Note there is a huge difference between "submitted to a journal of the Nature group" and "accepted to Nature."  Not all Nature group journals are highly desirable places to publish.
I do not know the situation in computer science or biology.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Wikipedia article about PhD thesis
During my PhD, I developed a new microscopy technique and soon I will submit a major paper presenting the work. I am now in the job market looking for postdocs, not necessarily in the same field where I did my PhD work.
Would it be a good idea to make a Wikipedia page on the technique I developed? Would it be perceived as a signal that I have no good science to show (I don't think so)? Thanks!

Does your technique meet the requirements for a Wikipedia page?

Wikipedia articles require sources which prove the statements made in the article. If you already have publications/sources you can cite, Wikipedia may approve your article. But I have no idea about the academic impacg of a Wikipedia articles.

In terms of having comprehensible, google-able information about your technique? Yes. In terms of putting it on your CV or otherwise getting personal credit? No.

You can't make a Wikipedia page until the material is published anyway, because otherwise it would count as 'own research' with no citable sources. If you do make one if someone Googles your work the Wiki page will come up. It's up to you if you think that's a good thing or not.

Trying to build your reputation is bad motivation for creating a Wikipedia article. Typically, such attempts result in much drama on Wikipedia. Keep in mind that anybody can (and will) edit a Wikipedia article.

I personally don't think it would have any influence. If that technique is interesting enough for the commitees, then they will offer you the job wihtout any fancy stuff. Otherwise, even being a guest in Jimmy Fallon might not work.

This is not a question about academia, this is a question about Wikipedia.

Would it be a good idea to make a Wikipedia page on the technique I developed?

No. In the best case scenario (which is also the most likely one in my opinion), one of the Wikipedia editors will delete the page you created, since there are not yet any published papers about the technique you developed so it doesn't even come close to satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria (which probably wouldn't be satisfied even long after your paper is published, unless your discovery is truly groundbreaking and ends up being cited and used by many people).
In a less ideal scenario, your article won't be deleted. That would be even worse, because anyone who happens on this page will immediately know that you created it, and will conclude that you are some combination of:

Someone with a highly inflated and unrealistic opinion of the value of his work.
Someone who is clueless about the value a scientific work needs to have in order to deserve having a Wikipedia page about it.
Someone who is obsessed with self-promotion to a very unhealthy extent that is an extreme outlier in academia (and frankly has no place in academia in my personal opinion).

Would it be perceived as a signal that I have no good science to show (I don't think so)?

No, but it won't signal that you do have good science, and it would signal several other things about you, none of which are good -- see above.

Thanks for the honest answer. Now I feel stupid for having created a page on the page my technique derives from, and having emailed the mastermind about it.

Albus, most likely you shouldn't feel stupid about that. Wikipedia's core principles encourage you to "be bold" in doing anything you think will improve the encyclopedia. Either you have genuinely made Wikipedia better, or if you didn't, it's no big deal. I think Dan's answer is exaggerated, most people will simply think nothing of it one way or the other; I have been working with academics and Wikipedia for ~10 years, and I assure you most are not sure what to think. Demonstrating familiarity with how it works is not likely to be a BIG plus, but it might spark an interesting conversation.

No, it would not be advisable to create a Wikipedia page solely devoted to the new technique. If you are one of the sole people responsible for the technique and its development, you run the risk of creating a conflict of interest. Even without that issue, a new technique likely has few published sources to support it, so you will have difficulty establishing notability. Without additional support from reliable sources, your new page may be deleted.
Luckily, there are numerous other options for promoting your work in laymen-friendly ways. It may be feasible (and may even provide better visibility of your work, even to prospective employers) to write a few blog entries about the approach, produce a short Youtube video about it, or even a dedicated wiki, if you see the technique undergoing changes or optimizations in the near future.

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


text:
Does stating multiple degrees from a single university on a CV disadvantage an applicant for a research or lecturing position?
I have a bit of a potentially unusual situation with my CV.  Over the years while I worked in an unrelated field (to pay the bills etc), I completed multiple degrees - all degrees were completed to a good standard.  The degrees are either in education (earlier ones) or physics (later ones).
However, most of the degrees are from a single university - including the final few, which were in closely related fields. All culminating in a PhD.
My question is - is there any disadvantage to having multiple degrees listed from the same university on a CV when applying for a postdoc or lecturing position?

No, there is no disadvantage to having multiple degrees from the same university.  Normally you should not leave any degrees out of your CV.  There are advantages to having experience at multiple universities, but that does not have to be in the form of a degree.

Thank you for this reassurance - I had received conflicting advice about this.

@Saturnus It's something of a traditional belief in academia that staying at the same institute is something like "academic incest". Being at several universities is supposed to expose you to more cultures (of all meanings), research, and researchers.  Staying at one in this case is presumed to mean you are more narrow-minded (academically or otherwise), and less well-connected (fewer vectors for collaborations, fewer recommendations from researchers in your area, etc.) , and this is (deemed) an undesirable trait for a researcher. This is changing a bit (yay internet), though.

Wow... it's a good thing then that, as mentioned, it's not all of the degrees

@Saturnus - But z timmy might be overstating this.  Here's a way of looking at it: if we look at two otherwise equal candidates, and one has diversified to an additional university (which has a strong program), then the diversifier would have a plus that the other candidate doesn't.

Well it's a bit late now :(

@aparente001 if "diversification" means so much to you, OP has actually "diversified" much more than your hypothetical "diversifier" since he/she got multiple degrees in completely unrelated disciplines. Personally I think this "academic incest" notion is utter poppycock. If we look at two otherwise equal candidates and one has diversified to an additional university, then they are not just "otherwise equal", they are simply equal.

... And I hold this opinion irrespectively of the fact that my three degrees are all from the same university.

@DanRomik - Your comment would make a helpful answer here.  There has been only one answer so far, which is diametrically opposed to the view you expressed in your comment.  (Please note, my position was somewhere between yours and Anonymous Physicist's -- closer to yours than to AP's.)

@aparente001 my view is essentially the same as that expressed in AnonymousPhysicist's answer (which I upvoted), and certainly not diametrically opposed to it, so I don't understand what you're saying.

@DanRomik - Hmm.  AnonymousPhysicist wrote, "There are advantages to having experience at multiple universities," and you wrote, "If we look at two otherwise equal candidates and one has diversified to an additional university, then they are not just 'otherwise equal', they are simply equal."  How are those statements in agreement?  Am I misunderstanding one of you?

@aparente001 there are "advantages" (and disadvantages) to doing almost anything (including staying at the same university for all your degrees). I think you tend to read a bit more into what I write than the literal meaning of my words. Anyway, hope that clarifies things.

@DanRomik - I think I may have been confusing the "traditional belief" described by zibadawa timmy with Anonymous Physicist's answer.  // It looks like we're both having trouble understanding the other today.   I was quite surprised when you wrote, "if 'diversification' means so much to you," since in my comment I was trying to say that I see diversification of institution as being of minor importance.

For clarity, if it's desired, I was not espousing the "academic incest" idea as either valid or invalid.  Just that such a perception does seem to exist in some academics, enough so that I have heard it myself on a number of occasions from several different tenured professors.  You can also see it reflected in some of Feynman's accounts of how he decided where to do his post-doctoral work (his advisor seemed to think it was a very bad idea for him to stay at the same university, and much better to go to a different one, which Feynman later agreed it was), which I think was not unusual then.


text:
What is the best "last slide" in a thesis presentation?
There are some possible options as the last slide of a typical thesis presentation. I've heard of some possibilities:

A question-mark image (as the time to be slaughtered by the referees!),
A Thank You declaration (There are some negative viewpoints about these two options.),
A slide including summary of the presented ideas,
A slide reflecting the presenter's contact info (I think it does not really make sense for a thesis presenter.),
A slide including a quote (I really doubt it's the best way.),
...

What is the best practice to arrange the last slide, then?!

There are probably also cultural differences to consider. In France it's customary not to thank the audience at the end of the defense -- you only thank everyone once the jury has decided to award the degree to you (or not, if they don't...). So option #2 would not be doable in France, for example.

The slide should support your talk. What will you be doing at the end? How long will that slide be visible? What do you want the audience to do/think/remember?

I'd finish on a one-liner that summarises what the audience should take away. Or the biggest lesson that you have learnt.

Do you have funding sources to thank? That's what I did for REUs.

Don't make it the last slide, stop at the summary, but have additional slides afterwards giving any figures or data that might be useful in answering the questions that follow.  You might not need them, but they are there just in case you do.

Clearly this

A good general tip for presentations is to add a completely blank slide to the end. That way, you can leave the projection system on, but there is no distracting/irrelevant information on the screen during the next part of the session. Any supplementary slides can follow the blank slide. A verbal statement that you have finished your presentation is all that is necessary to end it!

Transformers, Star Wars, Baahubali etc?

A last slide should never imply that the audience can ask questions, because it is usually not the speaker who decides this.  If there are time for questions, this will be determined by the chair.

Why Not Zoidberg? ;) Seriously though, probably a good choice is the conclusions slide... I used one on my slides that you can see here.

@NajibIdrissi Very good point. This is also the case in Canada, at least for engineering and medicine. It's a privilege to attend a thesis defense for the more interesting presentations. Also, the really cool theses (ie: those that win the big job reference or money-making patent) always end up requiring an NDA to be signed, sometimes even a "collateralized" NDA (slang for, only people with money, reputations, and careers to lose can sign the NDA and be allowed in; broke students with big mouths can't get in).

I once put in a fake blue screen of death as the very last slide (realistic BSOD information using white monospace font on a medium blue background without page number, etc.) - got a few mild snickers from the audience, but the funny part was that at least one person in the room thought it was real. :)

P.S. DON'T do that for a thesis presentation!

The last slide will typically be seen for some minutes after you finished talking – until you jump to some other slide for addressing a question. This is something that you should use. If you ended your talk with a summary (which is a good thing in most cases), leaving that slide gives the audience opportunity to reflect on your talk, remember what they wanted to ask a question about, or just let your central messages sink in. If they do not want to do this, but focus on the questions, they are not distracted by anything new that you didn’t talk about.
The main exception is if you find it difficult to orally convey that the talk has finished – in that case a thank you slide or an any questions? slide may be the lesser evil and save you from a few seconds of awkward silence that everybody needs to realise your talk is over. Note that you can use such a slide as a backup behind your summary slide – if you manage to finish your talk on the summary slide, the audience never gets to see it. If you botch it, you can quickly jump to the summary slide.
In most situations, however, I consider thank you slides and any questions? slides pointless, as they do not tell the audience anything new and are things that you or the chair have to say. A quote would distract the audience from the questions – unless you are going to read it, but then the quote has to really fit the occasion. Your contact information does not need an entire slide and can usually be fitted on the bottom of the summary slide.
Finally note that on some rare occasions, the following order of slides may work:

main talk with main results
summary and outlook
one or two appetiser slides illustrating first steps into what you just announced as future work, e.g., to show that you paved the way for something interesting.

In this case, you can either jump back to the summary slide or stay on your last appetizer slide – depending on what is more attractive.

+1 - for everything in this (particularly noting that the 'thank you' or 'any questions' slides seem pointless unless speaker has a hard time 'closing' a talk. (And then, just flash it and get back to the summary slide so you don't leave non-content fluff up in front of audience for longer than any other slide in the talk while waiting for questions, etc.

@Carol I find your comment deeply unsettling. (I do fully agree with it though.) ;)

The "any questions" slide is not only useless - it's rude. The presenter is usually not the host of a meeting - it's chair's responsibility to decide whether there is time for questions, and when it's appropriate to open the discussion.

@BartoszKP I strongly disagree that it's rude.  Even if the host has absolute authority over the structure of the meeting (which seems strange to me, especially at a defense, since presumably the speaker knows the schedule and can see the clock), the speaker is merely signaling that they are ready to take questions.

@JeffE You're right, that the intent can be clear, and be a simple signal that they are ready for questions, but it looks rude, regardless of the intent. It looks like "taking over" the meeting, intruding into the position of a host. Especially at a defense, which usually is a quite formal occasion, with quite strictly defined structure and quite strictly defined rules of behaviour.

@BartoszKP ((How can something look rude if the intent is clear?)) The formality of defenses (and of academia more generally) varies considerably from one country (and field, and university) to the next.  For example, defenses in the US tend to be fairly casual, while defenses in France are formal and extremely structured.  At least in the US, showing a "Questions?" slide at the precise moment where everybody knows it's time to ask questions may be redundant, but it's not rude.

@JeffE Sorry, I've meant something different by "clear", a calque mistake. You can never guess the intent accurately so in this meaning it's never completely clear. I agree that if the occasion is casual, then such slide is simply redundant. But as you note yourself, not all defenses are casual - France being one example, and my country (Poland) being another :)

Another alternative I have tried recently is putting thumbnails of all the previous slides on it:

It's just a recent experiment, though; I don't have enough data to tell if it's the best last slide. Apart from the eye-candy, I think it can be useful as a pseudo-summary if your slides are sufficiently recognizable (for instance, if they have pictures).
For sure it helps solving the problem mentioned in another answer: "You had this formula on one slide. Can you go back? ... No not that one, before that ... Ahh yes that one."
It's kind-of tricky to do automatically in beamer, though. You can always do it manually by copying the output file somewhere else and specifying the page numbers manually, which is how I achieved it:
\begin{frame}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\includegraphics[page=1, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=2, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=3, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=4, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} \\

\includegraphics[page=5, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=6, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=16, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=17, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} \\

\includegraphics[page=18, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=19, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=35, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=45, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} \\

\includegraphics[page=46, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=50, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=51, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} &
\includegraphics[page=52, width=0.2\textwidth]{poloni_slides_pdfpages.pdf} \\

\end{tabular}

\begin{block}{}
\centering Thanks for your attention!\\
Questions?
\end{block}
\end{frame}

Interesting touch... but don't you think it might not transfer any meaningful idea to the audience? Especially when there is a multitude of slides. So, the thumbnails will be very small and unreadable.

While this idea may work with some talks, I would add numbers to the slides. Otherwise, you get something like: “Can you please go back to the third slide in the second-to-last row?”

@Roboticist Depends on your goal... If you want to transfer meaningful ideas with your last slide, this works definitely worse than a summary but definitely better than a big question mark. :) The thing I wanted to do is trying to remind the audience of the content of your talk by appealing to visual memory. Just a random thing I am trying, anyway, it's not like I have research on its effectiveness. :) If there are too many slides, you can choose to include only the "most important" ones.

@FedericoPoloni: "The most important ones" sounds to be a much more effective approach. Of course, I bet if I try to choose "the most important ones" from the pool of slides, a referee will ask me: "why have you chosen these, not those?!" :D

This is great!  As a bonus it provides incentive to keep presentations within a reasonable number of slides.

But this kind of last slide only works well with few slides and a good projector. Otherwise it’s a page with blurry rectangles.

if you got rid of the 'thank you for your attention' you could make the slides a bit  marginally bigger. But overall, seeing this thing at end would makes my eyes glaze over immediately. while I reaiize that it 'seemed' like a good idea at the time. End with a summary slide.

And if it a computer science course you should include this last slide in the thumbnails, recursively, all the way down.

“It's just a recent experiment, though; I don't have enough data to tell if it's the best last slide” Now we are all wondering how many thesis defenses you are going to do in order to test this approach with enough data. :D

@AndreaLazzarotto I did it in a conference talk, not a thesis defense. :)

In a similar vein, I've seen a lot of people basically put a "table of contents" as their last slide.

@StellaBiderman - I like this idea.  Perhaps it could be combined with Federico's idea, by including a small, memorable graph or illustration with each line of the table of contents, to stimulate people's visual memory of the original slides.

This could be more useful if you make each image hyperlink to that slide, and presumably one could automate this.

Great idea if the number of slides is a square number AND your talk is algebra related.

By the way, I recall someone told me "Thanks for your attention" is not fluent English, is that true? can native speakers suggest a thank-you phrase?

@Aminopterin "Thanks for your attention" is perfectly fluent English.

@FedericoPoloni: Sounds like an interesting idea. Would you mind updating your answer with how this last slide was working out for you (if you used it since then)? Many thanks!

@Exocom I haven't used it much apart from the first experiments, a bit out of laziness and a bit because I forgot. :)

If I were on your thesis committee I would be most happy with your slides if they were your original work and represented your own personal tastes and sensibilities. Therefore I would be more impressed with even a goofy or weird last slide that I knew you actually came up with yourself and made sense to you, than one that was proposed to you by people on academia.se, even if it were ostensibly more professional looking or slick.
In other words, the "best last slide" is, by definition, whatever you decide it is.
And yes, I realize this is a bit of a smartass answer. I am trying to make a point here about the value of original thought, and hope that some people will find this perspective helpful or thought provoking. But to anyone who doesn't get it or thinks I am barking up the wrong tree, feel free to downvote this answer.

I actually think it's a good sensible answer.

Knowing when to learn from Academia.SE is important. I'd say "designing the last slide" is one of the cases where one can learn and not reinvent the wheel.

@svavil if OP had framed the question as "what are some good ideas for the last slide" then I would agree that that's a reasonable thing to get advice on here. But the question is framed in a way that assumes there's a unique "best last slide", which I find off-putting. In general, many questions here seek advice on optimizing every little nuance of academic life. At some point I think it makes sense to encourage people to think for themselves. And as I said, I am more impressed by people who put personal/creative touches into their work even if the result is quirky and a little less slick.

@DanRomik thanks, the last comment makes your stance clearer.

This. My last slide was a picture of the beach I was planning to spend the next month on, trying to recover from the ordeal of writing the damn thing. It got a laugh from the audience and helped me have something to look forward to while answering the questions :)

In my opinion, the best last slide is a short summary of your presentation. It should contain the question you researched and what your result was. This has several advantages:

Your audience can recapitulate your talk. This allows them to better place what you told them in your conclusion and why what you did is awesome.
Following the scheme "Tell them what you are going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you told them." makes your topic easier to understand. Since it is a graduate thesis, chances are your topic is rather complex and merits recapitulation.
This is the last slide your audience is going to see and should be the "take home message". So it can be a condensed version of what you presented, now that you explained all they need to know. This is going to fortify what the audience remembers from your talk.
A recapitulation also offers the referees prime material for slaughtering you (in the positive sense). You can keep all your used variable names, concepts, definitions, etc. on this slide so that the referees remember them. This makes asking questions so much easier and prevents question of the style: "You had this formula on one slide. Can you go back? ... No not that one, before that ... Ahh yes that one." If this is out of the way, you can directly jump to the interesting questions.

It's not anything particular to a thesis presentation, but I've found that an acknowledgement slide is a solid last slide for the presentation. It's a choice that I've found rather common from experienced presenters (e.g. visiting professors when giving seminar talks.)
I agree with others in saying that slides with just "Any Questions" or "Thank You" isn't the best. They're rather content free, and such sentiments can be handled verbally. (Also, depending on how things are handled, your advisor or committee chair may be the one to open the floor for questions and select who asks the next question, in which case it may be slightly awkward if you've already opened the floor for questions.)
Instead, you can take the opportunity at the very end of your talk to thank and acknowledge the people who have helped you out. Generally this takes the form of a photo of your advisor's group, often with a list of names of others in your group, along with several columns of names pointing out any collaborators. It's also nice to point out in a corner any funding sources, if you received any grants or scholarships which supported the work. If you put their names up in writing you don't necessarily need to read out everyones name, but it is good to point out some of the key people and potentially mention their specific contribution.
One caution is to keep the amount of talking you do on your acknowledgment slide brief. I'd recommend a minute or so at most. Spend too long - particularly with a bland recitation of 20+ names - and you'll bore the audience. If you're going to name names, pick out just a few key people whose help you'd like to highlight. Err on the side of being too brief rather than too effusive. If you have individual names up, you can acknowledge in groups ("my collaborators in the Smith Group") rather than individually.
With an acknowledgement slide you have a rather "neutral" slide that clearly signals the end of the presentation, but contains a non-trivial amount of content in itself.
Note: You didn't mention which field you were in, so I gave an answer from my experience in biochemistry. Do keep in mind that presentation styles do vary somewhat from field to field. If it's not common in your field for experienced people giving seminars to present an acknowledgement slide, please ignore my answer and pick something that's more common to your field.

While this is certainly laudable, it's also likely that this will bore at least a part of the audience. In that respect, presentations are quite a bit like movies - when the credits (that producers are ethically, and possibly even legally, obliged to show) start rolling, almost the entire audience stops watching and leaves.

@O.R.Mapper Oh, certainly. Spending too long on an acknowledgment slide is indeed terribly boring. I added in more mention of keeping it brief. -- Even then, I agree some people will "zone out". If you're lucky, they'll take the "free" time to formulate the question they want to ask you.

I second @O.R.Mapper here: Any form of acknowledgement at the end of the talk is lethal to attention, enthusiasm, and flow. The only thing I consider bearable is if you just show the acknowledgement slide but do not talk about it – but then it still steals the attention of your audience. If your talk has “coäuthors”, list them on the title slide. If specific parts have collaborators, mention them on the respective slides (but only in writing). Funders can also be acknowledged on the title slide.

I prefer acknowledgements up front as part of the settling-in phase.

Most people won't remember where they had questions without some help.
So if you want questions from the audience, end with a summary slide.
And if you don't want questions, just write: "Thank you! Any Questions?"

That's how my thesis tutor described it, great advice!

Wouldn't that be the other way around? Remind them if you want questions, and don't remind them if you don't?

@Alpha3031: That's the point, that explicitly inviting questions is not as effective as laying the groundwork for questions.

What I was advised to do and have seen done several times, and it worked rather well was to highlight 3-4 main pertinent points, specifically:

brief reiteration of the research problem
reiteration of a main aspect of the method
a statement or 2 of the main result/outcome of the results

Underneath, I included my email address and any other main researchers - with a statement that if they wished to receive a copy of the presentation to contact by email - but check to see if this is allowed first.
(The slides before had the acknowledgements and references)
This way, while questions and/or discussion was occurring, a clear and concise summary of the presentation remained projected.

Having gone through many variations myself, more recently I settled on putting a brief bibliography on the last page. I think it is more meaningful than a "thank you" or "questions?" page (certainly more meaningful than some "inspirational" quote!), and perhaps more appropriate than contact details. Of course it does not prevent me from having a summary (if applicable) on the next-to-last page.
The bibliography need not be long; it may include references to your prior research relevant to the current presentation, or other key pieces of literature that anyone in the audience who became interested in the topic of your presentation might benefit from. (A couple of times I went overboard and had two dense bibliography pages; I don't think that was a good idea.)

I have not yet had to prepare and present a thesis but I have done a lot of presentations for my studies.
I usually use a dark background for my first slide, with the title in a light coloured font and use a light background with dark text for the presentation so my solution is to have a blank last slide with a dark background.
I usually thank the jury for their attention verbally, as a sign the presentation is finished so I do not need to thank them "in text" which feels awkward.
I also avoid the "Any questions ?" slide, especially if it is going to stay on display. I rather say something close to "If you have any question feel free to ask them I/we will do my/our best to answer them".
The reason I don't leave the summary visible too long is that I find I tend to read it over and over again when watching a presentation rather than listening to other peoples questions. If I'm like that I'm sure, or at least I hope, other are as well.

Would the downvoter explain what's wrong with this answer?

I did not downvote, but the answer is a bit unclear. Is the proposed solution simply a blank last slide?

Yes that's it. I could maybe edit my answer to make it more obious.  It should be noted though that I usually have a very simple summary of the key points and/or conclusions before that blank slide.

Also, it should fit in your presentation's overall appearance, to show that it is, in a way, part of it and not just a white slide.

US Military typically employs option 3 as the penultimate slide, followed by a slide asking for questions, followed by the statement or a slide "This concludes my brief" or presentation.
For the presentation of a thesis, option 3 is always good for a penultimate slide at which you can ask for questions. I'd follow that with a thank you slide to conclude.

Interesting and practical response, thank you!

@Saturnus Thanks. This is my first post on the site. I think a summary should always be included in any good conclusion, like most of us are taught in grade school.

I've been at a Master thesis defence, where professor N., known for his inspiring and engaged teaching style, and admired by many students, was present. At the end of the presentation, the last slide said

Thank you for your attention!

The chairman asked whether there are questions, and as usual, there was one from N. The student answered, and then clicked to the next slide, saying

Thank you for your attention, professor N.!

This will depend largely on what happens after your presentation. If the last slide will stay on screen during discussions between the thesis committee and you, a picture representing your work (e.g. your thesis cover) might be a good choice.

How about combining option 2 and 3
Since I sometimes find it hard to round-off a presentation without creating an awkward silence, but do not like having a slide saying only "Thank you", let me offer one more alternative.
Have a last slide with a summary/conclusion of your main results, and possibly some future work. Also end the talk by quickly reiterating your main result(s). Then at the end, let the words "Thank you" (or "Questions?" or whatever you want to end the presentation with)  appear at the bottom of this slide. I usually use a slightly larger font and different color, such that it stands out.
This allows you to smoothly end your presentation, yet keeps the useful summary slide on screen during the discussion.

Best way to end your presentation is to give an overview of whole things you described in earlier slides. you can also request for feedbacks for your presentation to improve according to audience point of view.

And would should be on the last slide then?


text:
Should someone mention her admission to other prestigous universities in past years when she applies for a PhD program?
Last year, one of my friends received a competitive PhD offer (including a full-time research assistant position) from a highly prestigious university in Canada, however her request for Study Visa was rejected because of some Social Tie issues.
This year, she has a plan to apply for universities in Europe and Australia. Is it worth mentioning her last year offer in her emails to the potential advisors or put it in her CV in order to increase her chance of acceptance?
Roughly speaking, the acceptance in the aforesaid Canadian university is considered harder than the European and Australian universities she wants to apply.

Related question: one of my friends wanted to ask a woman out on a date. She was nice looking but not stunning or anything. Should he mention to her when he asks her out that he previously dated a model?

@Rüdiger If it helps you to answer the question read it as "a bit prestigious" ;)

I just don't see that information as appropriate... it doesn't belong in a CV or the application. It could be appropriate for a letter of reference to mention it, though.

+1. If her application is good enough to have garnered an offer from such a prestigious institution, it will be good enough to attract further offers from other, less prestigious institutions.

@astronat, true. I'd intended to say that as well, but had to cut it short at the time.

You can still edit your answer and therefore improve it.

The offer isn't CV worthy, but the CV gap and personal journey merit a mention somewhere, perhaps in a personal statement or a covering letter. (Maybe on a CV, if there's no other means.) For instance,

My PhD journey started over a year ago, when I applied and was accepted to [highly prestigious university], Canada. Unfortunately, my offer was eventually retracted due to visa issues.

(The visa issues could be mentioned, if relevant.)

Exciting admission deadlines long gone, I spent the year [doing marvellous things], now I want to pursue [my original agenda].

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


text:
Working relationship with master thesis professor
First of all let me explain my situation a little bit.
I am writing my masters thesis in theoretical quantum field theory and have a very bad contact with my promoter. I see him once every few weeks and he doesn't have any concrete feedback. (40 written pages have been lying on his desk for months without any feedback on them) There is a PhD student that is helping me but our ideas are not in line and all he does is give negative feedback up to the point where I cannot value it anymore (it feels personal instead of professional)
This situation is becoming rather desperate since I was hoping for a PhD in physics but I have no recommendation letters from my promoter which ruins much of my chances...
I have talked to another professor at the faculty and they tell me that that they know him and that it doesn't really surprise him, but this does not help me. That same professor might be willing to get me started in a PhD but I am afraid that he'll ask my current promoter how I work, and whatever he says, it will not be representative of how hard I work.
Last but not least, the deadline for my thesis is in a couple of months and I am yet to get some feedback on a crucial, very unorthodox step that I made. I motivated the step and anybody asking me will see that I thought about it for a very long time but still, it might be wrong. Can I get a total fail for my thesis if this is the case? And how does this influence my further career ?
I felt really confident at first for a PhD; I am very motivated and work a lot, but this whole situation is really taking away my academical drive.
Any tips and advice ?

There are three ways to get your work reviewed by people other than your supervisor:

You've probably already done a related work survey. Look for other professors and PhD scholars who are doing or have done work that is very similar to yours. Contact these people by sending them emails and ask them to review your work. Don't send them a 40-page document. No body is going to review that. Send them a summary of your work with emphasis on the main idea. Then if they are interested, provide them with more details. If have done a really good work, someone might offer you a PhD opportunity.
Try to get your work published in some reputable journal, conference, or magazine. During the process of publication, your work will be reviewed. Of course, you need to do that before the deadline of your thesis submission. I do not study physics and so I cannot recommend any publication venue.
Ask your colleagues who are working in the same or similar field to review your work. You said there is one PhD student who reviewed your work. Remember to accept any constructive criticism and use it to your advantage. Try to find other people.

If some people expressed interest in your work, tell your supervisor and try to get him/her engaged in your project. Hopefully you'll get a recommendation letter from him/her at the end.

Thanks for your reply I can really use the advice right now... :(
The best option for me feels like the first one since publishing is still far away and there are few other people at my university working on that topic apart form my promoter and that PhD student.
I know of various professors outside my university that are researching the field but I feel like emailing them would mean "back-stabbing" my advisor. Furthermore I don't want to waste their precious time by asking them to review a thesis that they have no affiliation with.

@gertian Having people from outside your university review your work is a common and encouraged practice. Just keep your advisor in the loop. If you want, you can ask him if it's OK to do that before sending any emails. Also, as I said, you have to send people a summary of your work (preferably fits in the email itself), not the whole thesis.

In my experience, getting a manuscript published in a journal is harder and takes longer than writing a master thesis. Having a publication in a decent journal will certainly help with applications for phd positions, but in my field you'd do the publication after you have submitted the master thesis because you are allowed only a limited amount of time for that.

@Roland Agreed. But publishing in national or international magazines is usually easier and faster. So there is that option.

@HadiBrais I followed up on your advice and gathered the courage to contact some professors from whom I know that they are actively researching the topic.
One of them answered positive and is willing to read a small review. It has already been sent and I am awaiting his feedback.
I'll keep you posted :)

@gertian Sounds great. I hope you'll get good reviews this time.

@gertian So, did you get what you were looking for?

@HadiBrais, it all turned out very well for me :)
I got very luck in the end...


text:
I have slightly over 3 weeks left before my master's thesis submission and I have done nothing. What can I do now?
I am in a very sticky situation here. I was forced into a field I had very little interest in (for lack of other options) and I have been slacking off a lot. Whatever little enthusiasm I had for getting things done got waned because the professor assigned me to one of his senior research scholars whom I did not get along with. To top that, I have a major supervisor phobia. I didn't read papers I was assigned, to learn the techniques I needed for my thesis. And I never reported to my supervisor. I rushed into choosing a topic for my thesis which on surface appeared manageable, and my supervisor believed I had my things sorted. However, that is far from the case. I didn't set a limit to how deep I should delve into it, and I wasted a lot of time learning things that haven't gotten me anywhere. Now I'm left with a hazy problem definition, I do not understand the necessary techniques well, I have barely started writing my thesis, and I have no results. What are my options now? I am too afraid to talk it out with my supervisor because the result of that wouldn't be good and would further contribute to worsening my grade.
Moreover, I am beginning to question if I am really cut out for research at all. I do want to pursue a PhD but in a field I have a penchant for, and not what I'm stuck with right now. I am also worried that if things go further downhill, my supervisor wouldn't be writing out recommendation letters for me, thus making it impossible for me to get into any labs. Will I have to repeat the masters course because of this?

"further contribute to worsening my grade" - surely, if you hand in nothing (or nothing acceptable as a "thesis"), your thesis will already be graded with the minimum grade (the one denoting total failure), won't it? "if things go further downhill, my supervisor wouldn't be writing out recommendation letters for me" - how can things (in the thesis, at least) go further downhill than delivering virtually nothing and failing to communicate that in time?

Can you [edit] your question to elaborate on the impact of your thesis to your degree at your university/department? At my department, the master’s programme takes two years, one of which is entirely devoted to the thesis (so somebody in your situation could at best work very hard to pass with a bad grade – but most likely will fail and have to repeat the thesis), but I acknowledge the possibility that it may be radically different in other fields and countries.

Is there a study counselor whom you can talk things over who is able to grant you some degree of confidentiality towards your supervisor?  I'm sure you are not the first nor the last student to land in this sort of situation, and would assume that your university has some sort of mechanism in place for sorting it out.  Above all, try to adjust your expectations to realistic levels.  It's not the end of the world but also by no means a trivial situation.  In any event, a counselor who is familiar with local conventions and regulations who doesn't have a stake in your degree would be good.

Speak to someone (maybe the study counsellor recommended by @tripleee or maybe the person responsible for overseeing dissertations) to establish the minimum requirements for passing, and try to write a thesis that satisfies these requirements.

I was forced into a field I don't understand what you mean here. You can always opt out.

Regardless of what you do about the thesis, there is a more serious problem you need to face and solve. Every research project or job is likely to require the discipline to work on things you don't find fun, working with colleagues you do not get along with, and prompt communication when you are not making expected progress on a project. Your master's degree thesis was a good project for learning those essentials. Do you have another plan for doing so?

You'll just need to fail the master, forget you PhD. Repeat the subject.

Wow, okay so no one forced you to do anything.  Blaming someone else is not productive.  You and your advisor failed on multiple levels, but it doesn't sound like you even really tried.  Why would you even expect to get a recommendation from your supervisor at this point?  How could you know if you are cut out for research if you haven't tried?

If you truly want to get this degree, you should expect to redo everything.  Another option is to drop the program, find a related job, and reapply to grad school with a, hopefully, fresh perspective.

The first thing to do is to bring your situation to your supervisor's attention. It is going to be a difficult conversation, because you should have warned much, much sooner. The later you delay this, the worse it is going to be. If there is any chance to salvage your degree, it depends on getting your supervisor's help and advice as soon as possible. If there is any chance of getting a recommendation from your supervisor, it depends on how you handle recovery from your current problem. Continuing to hide it is totally counter-productive.
Your supervisor should be able to help with deciding whether the three week deadline is achievable, given the requirements for a thesis in your department. If it is not achievable, maybe there is an option to delay the thesis for a few  months, giving you time to do the work properly. My own master's degree thesis was delayed for several months because of an unusually heavy workload and travel for my day job.
Regardless of whether you go into research or industry, there are going to be times when you are required to work on something you do not find particularly interesting. You are going to have to work professionally with colleagues you would not choose as friends. It is going to be very, very important to keep your bosses informed of the state of your work, especially when it is going slower than expected, and you are in danger of missing a deadline. I suggest looking at recovering your master's degree thesis as an opportunity to work on those critical meta-skills.


text:
Can I ask for an extension on the time to accept a job offer?
I was recently offered a term position (VAP) from a good school, and was given one week to respond. I am still waiting to hear about a tenure-track position from another school – I already emailed them about the offer I received, and told them my timeline to accept it was the end of the week. I haven’t heard back from them, although I sent the chair a thank you after my campus visit and he responded quickly. I assume they received my notice and are still deliberating and will hopefully get back to me in time, but I’m not sure if I should call soon.
I also was told I am a frontrunner for a pretty good postdoc, but I won’t hear back until early next week. In potentially the former and definitely the latter case, I won’t know until after I’m supposed to tell the first school about my decision. Would it be classless to ask for a small extension on the offer? Or will it put my chances for the position in jeopardy? I honestly went to the campus very recently and didn’t expect to hear back for a few weeks, so I don’t know what that means for their search either. I don’t want to jeopardize the offer but the two I’m waiting on are my other top contenders.

Could this question be edited to say, "When can I ask for an extension..."  to make it more broadly applicable? (I'm not sure how broad is too broad.)

No; you are not allowed.

Or will it put my chances for the position in jeopardy?

The position has been offered to you. The typical advice is the worst thing that can happen is they say no. There are some horror stories were an offer was revoked, but I would suggest you question wanting to work in any department that behaves that way.
It is completely reasonable to ask for a week or two week extension. When a school moves fast between visit and offer, it is unlikely you will get more than a week or two extension. That said, it cannot hurt to ask.

For the OP to remember - they want you, but likely have others who are also suitable who are 'dangling' waiting your response. Usually a week or two is fine, stretching it out by months means there is an unfilled position that needs to be filled.

To be clear: the (horrible!) horror story of the revoked offer involved someone who was negotiating for a better offer.  To revoke an offer just because someone asks about an extension -- it's really a stretch to view that as a form of negotiation, so I think that, while perhaps legal, it would be horrible on top of horrible to get the offer rescinded for that reason.  As you say, if someone actually didn't get the job for that reason, it must be for the best, so I think this is not even worth worrying about.

I have chaired faculty search committees before and this is a common problem. Most likely, they are giving you a short deadline because they do not want to lose other candidates that they like and are willing to hire while you take time to consider the offer made to you.
In most cases, if you can give them a short and specific extension they would be willing to grant it. For instance, stating that you had a campus visit last week and that you believe that you expect to hear back within the next week is a reasonable and professional request to extent the offer by an additional week. We have had candidates ask for an extra month so that they can go on additional campus visits that were weeks into the future and have said "no" to that, but there is greater uncertainty.
At worst, if they decline the extension you have a decision to make. It's a gamble. With academic jobs, it's like the saying, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Being told you are a front runner for the post-doc, does not mean you have that job. I would call the chair of the search committee for the position you are waiting on and try to see when their decision will be made. You have a reason to call them, so don't feel like you are bothering him or her.