text:
Would my sister, who studies in England on a visa, suffer retaliation if she discloses Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?
My sister studies at a university in England on a Tier 4 Visa, and her physician diagnosed her with Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) that is severely stigmatized and often judged a fake illness. Her CFS worsens when she lives alone in England - even after sleeping for 9 hours, by mid-afternoon, she becomes easily fatigued before she starts to study, after going to classes, cooking her own meals (she's vegan), and washing dishes.
1) She is considering disclosing her CFS to her university, but worries that the university would terminate her studies or expel her, because they may judge her too fatigued or weak to succeed in her studies from CFS.
2) Even if her university doesn't expel her, if they inform the UK Home Office of her CFS, then the Home Office may be the one to judge her as too fatigued to succeed, and terminate her visa and stop her from studying in England.
3) Moreover, the Home Office and the university would be sly enough not to state CFS as the reason because this may be illegal, but would invent some other reason to stop her studies.

Would your sister be able to successfully complete her studies without help and allowances from the university? That is a question she should discuss with her doctor. If the answer is "No", she has nothing to lose by disclosing, and may gain help she needs.

@PatriciaShanahan I agree. Her concern should be more if she can succeed and study, not if she can keep the visa if she is not able to study at all due to her condition.

I think your fears are misplaced. Universities only wish to know about disabilities in order to make allowances for students. By declaring the disability, your sister will enable the university to consider her condition if her condition causes her difficulty in meeting the course requirements. For example, if her condition means that she is unable to leave her accommodation to turn in coursework, she may be allowed to have a deadline extension. The alternative is that she misses a deadline, and the university believes this is due to poor time planning or laziness. This is what would lead to her being removed from her course. Informing the university about the disability in advance will explain the missed deadline, and could help ensure that she isn't removed from her course. Removing someone from their course simply for declaring a disability would be completely illegal.
With regards to the Home Office, I don't think the university has any duty or reason to inform them about disability. Regardless, the Home Office doesn't care about disability, only about your sister continuing to be enrolled on her course, and attending the pointless Tier 4 census. The Home Office has enough of a backlog of work already. They have absolutely no interest in removing your sister from the country for having a disability.
If your sister is still worried about informing the university authorities about her condition, she should certainly contact her student union. Most student unions have a disability officer who is elected from among the students to help and represent students with disabilities. They are independent from the university, and have no interest in informing anybody else about things that they are told in confidence. Talking to them might help allay your sister's fears.


text:
Can my surname under which I publish differ from the one on my passport?
Can my surname under which I publish differ from the one on my passport?
I was thinking of publishing under "Miller-Hendrix" instead of just "Miller".

I know several people whose surnames on their passport differ, at least slightly, from the one they publish under (married women who publish under their maiden names because they started their career that way; people whose surnames are long and difficult for English speakers to remember; people whose passports have suboptimal transliterations from Cyrillic into English). If you have a good reason to use a different surname, go ahead. If you don't have a good reason, it's remotely possible it will cause difficulties (e.g. when traveling to conferences in Israel), so I'd advise against it.

You can, but it might not be a good choice on the long run of things.

Preferably (if that is possible in your country) try to get the name you want to publish under listed as a pseudonym on your passport.

+1. @TheFireGuy Related to your comment: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8603/if-i-publish-under-a-pseudonym-can-i-still-take-credit-for-my-work?rq=1 (Thanks)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I call professors on their office phone for inquiring about research internship opportunities?
There are many established university research internship program, which ask to get an acceptance from a faculty to apply for the internship. I tried mailing them, but none of them responded. Should I call them over phone to ask about any opportunity? At least that would help me know where I am lacking so that I can prepare myself for the internship the next year. But I'm not sure if the researchers would view it favorably.

Speaking only for myself (UK academic): no, this should not be done, if the "target" has not previously responded by email.

@YemonChoi Umm, then what other way is there to know what skills I am lacking? Neither am I being able to contact the researchers whose research I'm interested in via mail nor being able to call them in the fear of being viewed as desperate/rude. I don't even know if the professors/researchers have even read my mail.

Professors are people too. They may have other duties to tend to. Give it time, and don't push the subject.

@SeanRoberson I'm not really pushing. I just sent one email to each one of them. It's been around 2 weeks now. Should I try my luck by mailing some other professors?

Nobody gives feedback, unless it is mandatory (article reviews/etc), get used to it. Especially in selection processes, when giving feedback would leave them open to get sued....

@FábioDias What do you mean by "leave them open to get sued" ?

@Blue: The more you explain, the more likely it is you say something that can be used legally against you. Sadly, just rejecting someone without providing any explanation is encouraged by legal frameworks as it is the legally safest way for the one doing the selection (among applicants for a job, a flat, ...).

@O.R.Mapper Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. :)  These things are complicated.

@blue, could you clarify a bit better what you are talking about? Are these at a university at which you are a student? Are you a student in another university looking for a summer job in a research group elsewhere? Are these publicly advertised (say a particular funding agency gives money to support faculty to hire outside students for a research opportunity)? I don't have a clue about the what you mean by 'well established university internship programs' as I've never heard of anything that would correspond in the US.

Is this related to https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41687/what-is-behind-the-indian-undergrad-research-experience-spam ?

@Carol I'm referring to the Indian universities (for example IISc, Bangalore) which take in summer research interns. Say, I'm from a different university. Many a times they mention on their website notice that students can contact the professors for internship/VS program. If the professors are willing to accept the students for their project, then the university provides the visiting student/intern with accommodation and travel expenses to enable to work under the professor's guidance in a research project.

@Carol Also, many institutes like RRI, PRL, TIFR have such visiting student's program. Yes, some of the programs do have a separate portal for application but at the same time many of them accept student interns only if a particular professor from the institute is willing to take them. Basically there are two ways of applying for an internship: 1) Apply through the application portal which is opened for a short span of time on each  institute's portal 2) Contact professors directly for internship positions. My query is about 2.

What's an "office phone"?
We used to have these white (sometimes black) boxes with buttons on them many years ago, but the last round of budget cuts took them away. I don't think many people noticed their disappearance.
On a more serious note, you're sounding a bit like a stalker or an annoying salesperson. If the emails aren't being answered (you should send one follow up after the initial one, but no more than two total), take that as a strong NO**. Phoning the professor is only going to annoy them.

** You didn't ask, but reasons for the NO:

I have no internships.
I have internships but they've all been allocated.
I have internships but they're restricted to our undergraduates or to local high school students who are in the internship program.
A quick scan of whatever you sent me makes it clear you're inappropriate (you can't spell, you just graduated high school, you have no background in the field, our internships are restricted to particular categories of enrolled students, etc.).  However, HR told us to never say 'no' in terms of justifications that could open us up to lawsuits, so it's best to just ignore.
Internships are handled through a committee or other open process that if you did some googling you could easily find.  And I really have no use for an intern who can't find things by themselves.

As to why I don't send a 'no': I have five grant proposals, an external tenure review, two journal reviews, and my own research papers to write. Writing a polite no takes more time than a simple 'no' and again opens me / my university up to a lawsuit. Finally, answering what is essentially spam e-mail is my lowest priority.
If you are going to phone anyone, phone the department front office, university HR, or university student services or career services program (assuming you're an enrolled student). Be prepared for a 'no' answer and don't badger.

By "office phone" I mean the telephone which is assigned to each professor in their office (the phone numbers are usually found on their personal websites). BTW thank your for the answer.

Ours used to be black, but we completely switched to mobile phones three years ago. I completely agree: I wouldn't appreciate such calls at all. In fact, the only work-related calls I get are either from people I know well or from journalists. If we don't have a previous relationship, email me.

Do you really not have an office phone anymore?

No. When we moved to a new building, they gave mobile phones to everyone (from PhD student to full professor) and didn't bother to install landlines. I guess no-one misses them. Only exception are some support staff offices (e.g., for incoming calls from students).

My university started charging US$30 a line per month. Our department decided that while $360/year per faculty didn't sound that bad, when you have 25 faculty, that came in aggregate to $9,000 a year for a resource that wasn't being used much. If you only make 2-3 calls a month on a landline, each phone call is $10+!!

"HR told us to never say 'no' in terms of justifications that could open us up to lawsuits, so it's best to just ignore" is just sad, if it's true.

+1 "sounding a bit like a stalker or an annoying salesperson"  Professors already get reams of unsolicited emails; if they start getting such phone calls on their office phones, maybe they really WILL get rid of their phones.

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


text:
Can one switch from the declared field of study in his SoP to another after acceptance?
The question is fundamentally about technical fields, e.g., EE; however, any other experience related to top-ten schools is welcome, especially MIT.
I've heard that the acceptance to graduate schools in top-ten schools is often committee-based. In particular, applicants declare their research interests in their SoP, but after the acceptance, they will attend the seminars of faculty members to become familiar with their active research. According to these seminars and any possible lab rotations (like what is provided in Caltech), the student may switch his field from what he already declared in SoP to another.
In contrary, here is an experience declared by a person (at UCB) saying:

What you might not know is that admissions are done by area (at least
  here at Berkeley).  The department can admit N students.  Area 1 gets
  n1 slots, area 2 gets n2 slots, etc, and each area decides which
  students to admit. Since there are some areas with lots of students
  applying, it is very hard to get into those areas.  Some areas have
  very few students applying, and  thus it may be "easier" to get in.
  It really works against you though, if you apply to area 2, thinking
  that it will get you in, and then try to switch to area 1, which is
  more popular.  In the most popular areas, it can be really hard to
  find an adviser, get funding, etc.  That is why they do the admissions
  by area, they actually admit only as many students in each area as
  they feel they can support (both financially and with advisers). A few
  always end up switching, but they do try to keep it balanced.

Is this really the common approach to reviewing SoP (which contradicts the first paragraph especially the philosophy of lab rotation)?!

(I'm a full prof at a top-5 American CS department, with a PhD from Berkeley.)
Yes, this is a common model for admissions in large engineering departments.  Admissions committees will assume that your statement of purpose accurately reflects your research experience, research interests, and professional goals.  Applications that describe interests in more popular areas (for example: machine learning) will face more scrutiny and stiffer competition than applications that describe less popular interests.
In the short term, this is important for funding decisions. Most CS PhD students at Ilinois at Berkeley are admitted with RAships, offered by individual faculty from their grants on specific topics.  We need strong evidence that you have the requisite background and interest in that research topic before offering you a job to work on that research topic.
In the longer run, this is important to make sure that the department will provide incoming students an environment that builds on their strengths.  We don't want to admit students who won't thrive, and we want to make sure that every incoming student can find an advisor, without overwhelming the faculty.
And yes, of course, PhD students can switch areas after they've been admitted, provided they can find an advisor in the new area.  After all, it's the student's degree, and the universe laughs at detailed plans.  That's why actual admissions decisions (in my department, at least) are made by a committee that includes faculty in all areas, rather than by the individual areas or individual faculty acting alone.  It's not enough for me to say that I would be happy to advise and fund a PhD applicant; there has to be strong evidence that the student will thrive even if they switch advisors or areas.
That said, it's a really bad idea to feign interest in a less popular area to get your foot in the door, and then try to switch to a more popular area.  As the Systers post you link to says: Popular areas have popular advisors.  Students who expressed interest in a popular area in their SoP have already been vetted by faculty in that area; students who did have not.  In practice, switching may not be possible.  And then you're stuck in a department that doesn't let you do what you really want to do!
Also, while allocating admissions slots to areas is a common model for admissions, it's not a universal model. Every department approaches admissions differently.  Some departments admit students under a general banner of excellence—under the quite reasonable assumption that most PhD applicants don't know what they want to be when they grow up—and then have everyone go through a common core of classes and group rotations.  A broader admissions model allows departments to take more risks, by admitting promising students who genuinely do not have specific research interests yet, which can lead both to huge payoffs and to more dropouts, but it can also put significant strain on the faculty in more popular areas.


text:
Where to place tables/figures in APA style dissertation
In following APA style, I put my tables and figures at the end of the paper, after the references. For example, here they explicitly say to put them at the end.
One of my committee members told me that this was incorrect and that she "didn't even bother looking" at my tables and figures. In retrospect, I didn't include a list of them in the table of contents. But as far as I can tell, the placement is still correct: I've seen people insert tables and figures in-text in theses, but this is seemingly not what you're supposed to do according to the APA manual. I've tried to see if different rules apply somehow to a dissertation and haven't found anything official. There are also no guidelines specific to tables and figures at my university.
Am I wrong here? If so, please refer me to some concrete source I can use for the future! And if not, how am I supposed to submit it without correcting my committee member?

At my university, we have students place figures and tables in the body of their document or in appendices. Our formatting guidelines also trump whatever style guide they're using. See if your university has a formatting manual of sorts - you should talk to the appropriate office.

If you are submitting a manuscript to a journal using APA style, then you typically put tables and figures at the end of the manuscript.
If you are using APA style to guide your thesis, then tables and figures will almost always go in the body where they are presented in text.
APA style is principally a guide for manuscript submission.
If you are using it to develop your own formatted document (e.g., a thesis), then you need to adapt it. In general, you should read any specific guidelines for thesis formatting provided by your institution.  After that, it can be helpful to examine several examples of theses, ideally at your own institution.

Thanks, I suppose I will just move them. Unfortunately there were no specific guidelines regarding the images, or even things like what to include in the table of contents. The guidelines just deferred to respective styles, except for the pagination. Someone from the department showed me theirs and it was just in APA style as usual. I guess that's just how it goes.

Thanks for the responses. Just to clarify, I did end up checking back with the department office again to probe in case I missed something, and there were no other guidelines other than the generic ones I initially used.
Perhaps some elements of the formatting for theses are fairly common and thus what my committee member was expecting, but there was nothing from the department or the college that spoke to such things. The guidelines are actually really loose and only define how to structure the page margins, numbering, and to not include running heads. Everything else just defers to respective writing styles.
Honestly while I understand the expectation there, I was kind of annoyed to be accused of being careless when I just followed the institutional guidelines. I suppose at the end of the day it was a kind of departmental deficiency. I will keep it in mind though for the future, thanks.


text:
Correction in Published Paper
One of my papers were published in a good journal. But Recently I have identified a  major flaw in my methodology. I want to correct it. Is there a way to correct it within the same published paper? Or, do I need to publish the corrected one in another journal?
Thanks in advance for your advice.

Normally, you can't just change an already published version. However, this does not mean that you should just publish the correction in another journal. The best way to deal with it would be to contact the editor of the original journal and discuss things with him, as this error also concerns him, not only you. He will then be able to tell you how to publish the correction.
In case that you aren't the only author (e.g. you have an advisor, colleagues, etc.), they should also be informed before taking action.

That is, it is possible to correct it within the same publication. Is there a chance that editor cannot take steps to correct it?

And another question: will this affect my future publication in that journal?

@user149054 I's say that most scientists have at least one article with minor or major flaws.


text:
Clarifications on American graduate school for an European student
My advisor strongly encouraged me to check out two (highly renowned) American universities for my PhD study.
Her collaborators in these two institutions are good people and great mathematicians, so, assuming I can get in, working there would be very pleasant.
However, I'm confused by the structure of these graduate schools. In the first two years I'm supposed to follow courses and do a comprehensive written exam and an oral one  which are mostly about topics (complex analysis, basic functional analysis, ODEs) that we do in the first two years of undergraduate study in my current institution.
The exam questions from the past years appear to be quite difficult, but revising those relatively elementary topics and spending a great amount of time solving difficult problems on them  seems like taking a step back after a Bachelor's and a Master's degree (which had a quite significant research component).
So my questions are the following:

what is the rationale behind this structure of graduate school in the US?
why is it effective?
should I be concerned about "wasting time" revising basic topics in my area instead of diving directly into a research program after a Master's degree?

Added context from comments:
"Students who already know the material can take the exams in the first month of their Ph.D. program" is exactly what my advisor's collaborators told me. However, although the core material is well-known to me, it appears that the exam consists of many problems in a short amount of time and that such problems are mostly about clever ways to sum series, evaluate multiple integrals, do contour integration, solve tricky ODEs, and so on. That is, it is about elementary things but requires lots of exercise. That's why I'm concerned that it could be an unnecessary detour.

American universities typically emphasize breadth at both the undergraduate and graduate levels much more than is my impression at European universities. Consider for example the American tradition of the comparatively broad liberal arts education. It is a cultural difference, but with certain advantages. (Which is not to say that specialization is without advantages.)

Could you clarify which country you are studying in as an undergraduate?

Note that the type of examinations given to PhD students also vary a lot within the US: across fields, departments, and universities. In the program I was in, for example, there was no coursework-based preliminary examination: the preliminary exam was a thesis proposal and was designed to make sure students had a plan after their 2nd year or so for completing their research.

That sounds like the course of study that the (physics) program I attended laid out for students coming in without a masters; there was an understanding that students with a masters would be evaluated to figure out how much of that classroom prep they needed to do—i think the comprehensive exam was still required. You might contact the department and ask if they have an arrangement for better qualified incoming students.

My two guiding comments are: (1) spending time revisiting important and fundamental mathematics is always beneficial, even if we feel that we've seen it before; (2) a program's comprehensive exams do (or at least should) represent what that program considers important and fundamental mathematics.

I have to admit, I didn't apply for a PhD in the US for exactly that reason: I had done so many exams already, I just couldn't face another round and just wanted to get on with it.

WOW what a timing 07.17 17>17

The rationale is because graduate programs in the US are generally structured assuming the incoming student does not have a masters, and got a bachelors in the US, which can sometimes involve an embarrassingly small amount of math (and maybe more importantly, there is a very wide variation in what students learn at different universities, due to the flexibility of the US system).  So, you're entering the system at a drastically different level of preparation from most people.  Of course, it seems off to you.  My experience at quite a number of US schools is that almost all incoming students need some sort of preparation of this type, often even ones with credentials suggesting that they shouldn't.
I think some of the logic here is that it's easier to set out somewhat tougher requirements and then make exceptions to let people accelerate than the other way around.
I think it's hard to assess whether it really is.  But I don't know anyone who seriously suggests we don't need to do something along these lines.  If something is covered in the syllabus of these classes, it is because the students don't consistently come into the program knowing it.
Maybe I'm being too dismissive here, but I am never sympathetic to these complaints.  If you really know the subject, the classes will not take much of your time.  No one will stop you from talking to professors about research or doing reading on the side while you're taking the classes, and generally the timetables around exams and classes are flexible. That time will only be wasted if you decide you want to waste it.

Thank you. This is a useful and insightful answer. About 3.: my concerns stem from the fact that, although the core material is well-known to me, it appears that the exam consists in solving many problems  in a short amount of time that are mostly about clever ways to sum series, evaluate multiple integrals, do contour integration, solve tricky ODEs, and so on. That is, it is about elementary things but requires lots of exercise. That's why I'm concerned that it could be an unnecessary detour.

Complementary to this good answer, for some cases, you may also request to transfer credits from your masters. Although, you would still need to complete qualifying/preliminary exams. Consider the fact that you are taking those classes again to prepare for these exames, to excel at it, practice your skills, learn new ways or improve your way of thinking, and also meet and learn from other brilliant minds.

Do you mean embarrassingly small amounts of math for math grad school or in general?

@Azor-Ahai Compared to a bachelor's in essentially any other country.  Part of this is that all majors in the US tend to be more flexible, with fewer strict requirements, and more ability for students to follow their interests.  This means that the level of preparation of graduating students is wildly variable.  In my experience, this seems to make less difference than you might think, but you really do need some way of getting people up to a reasonable knowledge base.

@Zyl I can't comment since I can't look at the exam, but at least consider the possibility that if the exam looks too tricky to you, it might be you don't know the field as well as you think you do, and you actually need to take the class.  I don't mean to be insulting, but every professor on here has had experiences with students swearing up and down (and presumably believing) that they know an area, and then freezing up when asked to do a relatively simple problem.

@BenWebster Thanks for your comment. "If the exam looks too tricky to you, it might be [...] you actually need to take the class." You're absolutely right: I need to revise and do exercise. Indeed, I took the relevant classes and did exams on those topics 3-4 years ago as an undergraduate (and they rarely pop up in my research area). However, I don't know if it is convenient to put research on hold for one or two years to do this revision, especially after that I have completed a research Masters program.

@Zyl I can't tell you definitely what will happen, but there is something about this that you are just not picturing correctly.  You don't have to put research on hold for two years to brush up on some material you already know.  You can work with a professor in addition to taking the classes and preparing for the exams.  Don't take the way things are written up on the website too literally; the program is understanding about the fact that students are coming in with wildly different preparation.

Having a couple of extra years to learn background (not just the classes; things you read on your own) is a feature, not a bug!

Speaking as a long-time graduate program director and adviser in a mid-level US department (at a big public university), I'd emphasize that most of our Ph.D. students in past years have had a less-than-adequate preparation in some basic areas.   This is true especially for US students coming from a typical 4-year college math major but is also true for some international students.   On the other hand, most of our students aim for a college teaching career, or perhaps a non-academic job, rather than aiming for a research career in some kind of mathematics (or statistics, part of our department).   At the most elite departments, it is taken for granted that everybody plans to do research.    But my own contemporaries in the 1960s Ph.D program at Yale actually went in many different directions.
Like most other US departments, we have had an evolving procedure involving written (and perhaps oral) qualifying exams.    Anyone applying to one of the top few programs should certainly ask questions about how and when such exams are administered, and how they are evaluated. Typically no one wants to hold back a talented student, but sometimes a student overestimates his or her own talent and knowledge (and future job prospects).    Even Harvard and MIT Ph.D.'s sometimes end up teaching at small colleges or out-of-the-way universities.
In any case, identifying a potential thesis adviser (or two) is equally important, though obviously it's difficult to predict one's future interests precisely or to predict the future logistics of an active faculty member (sabbaticals and other leaves can upset plans as can personal crises).   Good luck navigating the US system, including the evolving immigration rules!

In US programs I know about, e.g. UC Berkeley, there are preliminary exams (typically taken after the 1st year), on a broad range of topics, and qualifying exams, on the intended area of the PhD.
Unless you went to some very, very good MSc programme, this is meant to prepare you for academic career, and broaden your view of the subject.
I wish I went to one of these, instead of diving headfirst into PhD research.
As to "why is it effective", consider excellent products the system has been producing :-)

This system is common at many American universities. And usually, if an incoming student already knows a topic well, it is allowed to skip the class and simply take the exam directly to verify his or her knowledge.   Often, incoming students have diverse backgrounds and some students can pass out of one topic or another. In this sense, there is no time wasted, if one already knows a subject well.

At CUNY, we have qualifying exams in six topics, and students must pass exams in three of them before continuing with dissertation research. See https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Mathematics/Program/Qualifying-Examinations

This description is very similar to what we do at Michigan, except that we reverse the terminology: qualifying exams are about broad areas of math, and preliminary exams are about the intended research area. The qualifying exams are given 3 times per year. Students who already know the material can take the exams in the first month of their Ph.D. program.

@AndreasBlass "Students who already know the material can take the exams in the first month of their Ph.D. program" is exactly what my advisor's collaborators told me. However, although the core material is well-known to me, it appears that the exam consists of many problems in a short amount of time and that such problems are mostly about clever ways to sum series, evaluate multiple integrals, do contour integration, solve tricky ODEs, and so on. That is, it is about elementary things but requires lots of exercise. That's why I'm concerned that it could be an unnecessary detour.

Supplementing the other good answers, and echo-ing one of @BenWebster's points: I, too, am unpersuaded (statistically...) by complaints that "prelim exams" are too speed-oriented and/or too low-level/cleverness oriented. True, these are easy accusations to make, and complicated to attempt to refute.
However (without claiming anything about the questioner's situation), almost without exception, the on-the-ground complaints I've heard in this direction were from people who were not nearly as competent or mature as they imagined... and easily stood to profit greatly by further attention to basic things.
In particular (although, yes, there certainly can be "bad" instances of various prelim exams), an important meta-point that I (in writing such exams) try to test for is a higher-level understanding, especially which enables examinees to "see the forest for the trees" (or vice-versa), and realize that the given question is "just another" instance of an iconic, cliched, and useful/important idea... perhaps manifest in a slightly prankish-seeming context.
What I tell my own people is that they "are done" with "algebra, complex, real, ..." or whatever labels these exams are given, when they realize that there are "only eleven (or pick your favorite smallish-number) different issues that will come up". Prior to some point, they cannot see the commonalities (which is not so good), and then after some point, they do see the commonalities, and everything is easy.
In the latter context, almost all the complaints I've received are from people in a state prior to seeing how simple these basic parts of mathematics are (or can be). This is not a moral failing, but it is not a useful professional state (especially as part of a belief system...).

+1  Years ago, a student was furiously complaining about a particular question (not in my department but in computer science). According to the student, the question tested only the ability to do complicated arithmetic, for which reasonable people would use a calculator. (Calculators were not allowed in this exam.) What the question actually tested was the ability to see that complicated arithmetic was entirely unnecessary and the question could be solved almost trivially.

I can offer a more cynical point of view, as someone who has studied for and passed exams three times, at three different U.S. grad programs in mathematics: I completely agree with you. If you think preparing for exams is a total waste of time for you, you're probably right.
There might be students who actually learn things in the course of preparing for an exam, but there are also students for whom the whole exam routine actively interferes with meaningful learning. I am solidly in the second category, so I minimize the cognitive resources I allocate to exam preparation because it diverts time and energy from doing something useful. As another reply here points out, the exams at each school are usually recycled variations of the same manageably-sized bag of tricks, so it's probably less time-consuming than it seems at the outset.
From a philosophical/pedagogical point of view, it's unfortunate that programs don't even try to be a little more data-driven about the effectiveness and efficiency of this hidebound process. I could give a very long critique detailing why the coursework-written exam-oral exam gantlet is completely counterproductive, starting with the educational research that high-stakes exams reduce long-term retention. But this is the sort of thing that no one has any interest in hearing because they have no interest in doing anything about it. As you can see from the other replies, most (not all!) professors within this system are under the impression that such exams are a reliable way to determine whether a student "really knows the material," so why fix what (to them) isn't broken?

finally. someone with the critical mind... there is whole research book and critic on this subject. it is called Disciplined mind by Jeff Schmidt


text:
Should you always report to faculty with equal or higher rank?
We're restructuring but the new org chart has me reporting to an associate prof, instead of an equal-ranked full professor.  Is this defamatory or typical?

It's unclear what "report to" means. If your chair or dean is an associate professor, then you'd report to them. Can you describe your organizational hierarchy a bit more. Is this within a department or within a division, for example?

It's a new center that gobbled up other center's

Then sure, the title of "chair," "center leader," "program head," "PI," or other organizational administrative title overrides academic rank. You might not like it but your choices are to suck it up, get promoted, quit, or get hired elsewhere.

I can't see how this could possibly be "defamatory".  Were you perhaps looking for a different word?

Universities are not like the army, in which your commanding officer is always someone of higher rank than you.
For instance, it is common for an academic department to have a chair or head who is drawn from among the faculty.  Many (most?) universities allow an associate professor to serve as chair (some would even allow an assistant professor).  In such cases, an associate professor can certainly be the "boss" of a full professor.
I don't think there is anything unusual or worrisome about the proposed organization you're describing.

It might be good to add that in UK universities, for instance, there are different roles and you may have to report to the "role" of "programme tutor" even if they are title-wise below you.

Thanks - this is a great answer!   You're exactly right about reporting in the military.   (fyi-probably use "armed services" instead of army since reporting is the same across all branches of the mil.)  I like the response about reporting to roles in the UK.  So that would be akin to a "histogram" person in the physics department, because part of your lectures/research includes histograms for quark-gluon collider physics.


text:
Can I publish in a field completely unrelated to my present field? If yes, what about affiliations?
I'm a scientific researcher working in material science and have a couple of good publications in reputed journals. However, I'm also very interested in topics like philosophy, psychology and political science. I have some written material in these fields which I want to publish, but I'm not sure how to proceed. What affiliation should I mention with my name, as I'm not connected to any university/institution presently.
Should I contact some academicians working in philosophy, psychology, political science & related fields and offer them to include their name in the publication if they like my manuscript?
Moreover, I would soon be commencing my PhD in my main stream. Will the above mentioned collaborations be detrimental to my academics?

"Should I contact some academicians working in philosophy, psychology, political science & related fields and offer them to include their name in the publication if they like my manuscript?" - Look up "gift authorship".

If it wasn't already clear from @Antonio's comment, the answer to that question is NO!

You don't need any affiliation to publish - though the 'right' affiliations are known to make publishing easier. You can publish as a private individual too.

My general advice is to give your title and place of work.  Even if the publication is unrelated.  An exception would be if your employer forbids publication...

Another guess would be that a lot of amateurs submit papers in philosophy and psychology, with what are considered trivial remarks, or repeating mistakes of the past.  Of course if you know the literature of the area, you will avoid those traps, right?

Should you ever include people as author for liking your manuscript? No!
Can you try to get in contact with an academic of your favourite field, discuss your ideas with him/her and ask if they'd like to write a publication with you? Sure thing.
Will publications in a foreign field hinder your main Phd? Depends.
Will you find the time to do both in parallel properly? If not, which has preference? If you do it before you start your main PhD or you are happy to develop that other paper slowly as a hobby, it may not affect your main work.
Will it affect your reputation in your main field? For most people it should not have any impact at all. A few may value your additional interests others may see this is a diversion or as a potential risk for you to jump ship and switch your research areas. But overall, I'd think those are few and they'd even themselves out.
With respect to industry, many recruiters even claim they look for candidates that do something unconventional as a hobby/side interest. So in industry you may even win some minor bonus points.


text:
Answer on really valuable review after rejection and invite reviewer into co-authorhship?
Let us suppose that we have received a rejection of our paper form a journal, but this rejection contains a really very valuable and detailed review, so some ideas of this review after some consideration and rethinking will be included into the new version of the paper.
And I here have two questions. No doubts: the new version of paper will contain acknowledgements to the anonymous reviewer. But:

Is it a good manner to answer editor's rejection letter and ask him to pass our deep appreciation to the anonymous reviewer?
Is it somehow possible to ask the editor to pass our desire to invite this reviewer to be a co-author of our paper?

Yes and yes. Keep in mind that sometimes a reviewer might pass on your offer in order to maintain his/her identity.

@TheFireGuy thank you for your comment! Why not post it as an answer? :-)


text:
Can I collaborate outside my supervision on a work and add to my PhD thesis, me being the first author?
I wish to work with my Master's supervisor on an idea. The idea is mine and I do the implementation and write the manuscript. My Ph.D. supervisor is not open minded and will surely deny a  collaboration. My question is if it is legal?
Can I add it to my thesis?
It is my work, done during my Ph.D., will get published with me as the first author but no other advisor from my current university.
Please note that I do not work on funding given by my supervisor but survive on a university scholarship. So if I am using resources, it belongs to the university.

And when your 'closed minded' supervisor finds out, what then. Being open is a better approach than putting yourself in a bad position.

I am not scared of my close-minded supervisor. I am only asking if what I am doing is right? Legally and ethically!

why not?  After all, your supervisor already has a degree abd a job so he/she would not be well-advised to prevent you from having the same opportunities.

Doing what is 'right' is more nuanced and broader question than whether is considered 'more' 'ethical' or not. @JonCuster has already noted that being open and transparent (rather than trying to finagle it behind people's back) is the ethical procotol. Somehow the OP's comment on his own question makes it sound a bit more like - I want to have an argument in advance to justify some potentially bad behavior - am I more 'right' than my advisor to do so?

Let me simplify my question. Whether ethics or legality? Your answer is welcome. I believe I have the right to work with whoever I want to, even as a Ph.D. student, and I am not telling about it to my supervisor - that is again my wish, my right. That is not even a question. My question is can I use it in my thesis. I am not worried about my supervisor's feelings. I am worried about legality of it. And why is it unethical? - to people who are talking about transparency? Finagle behind the back? I am not stealing anybody's work!

It is my thesis. I own it. A thesis has a sole author and I defend it. So I must decide what work goes into it and I decide who I work with. I am not employed by anyone and I am not funded for a specific research. I do get a scholarship but it does not put restrictions on people I work with.

My Ph.D. supervisor is not open minded and will surely deny a collaboration. My question is if it is legal? -- I'm not sure I understand how denying your collaboration is even possible. I suppose your PhD supervisor could fire you, or refuse to approve your thesis, because you collaborated with someone else, and that might even be legal, but it certainly would not be ethical.

@JeffE I am not an employee of my supervisor for him to fire me. If he fires me, I believe the school has a responsibility to assign a new supervisor.

Why do you want to add this work to your thesis?  It seems to me that the easiest solution is to put into your thesis the work that your Ph.D. adviser wants, and, if you have the time and ability to do additional work, then publish that separately rather than putting it into your thesis.  Or were you planning to not do the work that your Ph.D. adviser wants? In that case, you need a new adviser.

@AndreasBlass My supervisor has a narrow focus on certain types of methods and does not allow me to explore anything else. Before I further criticize him, he is very happy with my work even though I myself am not very proud of it. So I am indeed looking for a new supervisor. But life is not easy and it will take some months due to my circumstances. I need to keep working and in areas which interest me. I did a good job during my masters and have a very good rapport with that supervisor. He wants me to inform my supervisor about any collaboration with him and is open to collaborating with them.

I wish to work with my Master's supervisor on an idea. The idea is mine and I do the implementation and write the manuscript. My Ph.D. supervisor is not open minded and will surely deny a collaboration.

Since you specifically want to know whether this is ethical and legal, I will answer these aspects first.
Legal
Sure, why not? It's your thesis, and an advisor is just an advisor. There is definitely no law or regulation that says that you need to run every contribution you wish to include in your thesis by your advisor.
Ethical
Here things become a little more nuanced, as your advisor usually has, or at least should have, a vested interest in your academic well-being and success in grad school, and you purposefully doing something decidedly unsmart (more on this below) could be considered unethical towards your advisor. That being said, it's easy to infer from your question that you are not on best terms with your advisor anyway, so I guess doing something that may put your advisor into a bad spot may not be that much of a deterrent to you.
The elephant in the room
So sneaking a surprise research contribution behind your advisor's back is legal and not overly unethical (imho, at least), but it's also decidedly not smart. Keep in mind that your advisor will typically also be the most important person in your thesis committee, so it's hard to imagine that a research contribution that he does not like in the first place (otherwise why would he "not be open to a collaboration", as you say?) and that you have also hidden from him will in his mind improve your dissertation. You should also consider the mindset that finding out that her/his student mistrusted her/him enough to hide work will put your advisor in for the final, crucial phase of your thesis.
I understand that as a student who has troubles with their advisor it is frustrating that they are in such a position of power, but trying to ignore this fact and hack around her/him is most certainly not the way to improve one's situation (changing advisor, while awkward, typically is).

I am changing my advisor for sure. But it's a process which due to my circumstances ( a necessary trip overseas) I can initiate only after some months and cannot sit idle till I find the next one. I need to keep working toward my thesis. My supervisor is not open-minded because he thinks he is the best and looks down upon other researchers, even though they are good researchers with proven contributions to the area.


text:
Bringing an unprepared student into the lab
I'm thinking of bringing a new student in the lab. His theory background is seriously lacking. He didn't take enough math and physics classes, and has insignificant programming experience. He has a permanent position as a technician at my institution and he wants to get a PhD.
I'm in serious need of manpower (or woman power), as what I'm doing requires a lot of computer simulations. The question is what should I do to involve this student early enough in research and keep him motivated until he understands enough to become curious? I have the feeling he wants the PhD more as a way to improve his position within the institution.
Edit: To clarify: I want the student to do all the PhD work that is required, i.e. learn the techniques, write papers, conduct independent research. I don't know how to get him over the steep learning curve at the beginning without losing him.

To speak plainly: You consider trading the PhD degree for cheap, relatively unqualified labor. My guess is that you will get mostly worthless labor, and the student will get mostly worthless degree.

@BorisBukh Actually, no. He will have to go all the way like the rest of us.

Sorry if I misunderstood. You speak about this student in very damning terms (unprepared, academically not motivated); to get them up the level, you would need to somehow change their motivation and prepare them. Even if the motivation bit works out somehow, are you budgeting extra couple of years of PhD funding and your own time to bring the student up to the level? Are you sure that the amount of manpower that you need to invest to bring this person to your level is less than the amount of manpower saved?

@BorisBukh I have no idea, but I have very few options because my institution won't hire anymore even capable people. I had a student for a year and half and I succeeded partially with him. But he left because he got a much better offer from Germany.

I am sorry to hear that. It is a tough situation; did you try to look for less advanced students (first- and second-years could be very bright, though less prepared). Heck, there are even some very good high-schoolers. They might be equally underprepared, but more motivated. I hope you will get some good answers about motivating that potential student of yours!

@BorisBukh If I could get an enthusiastic undergraduate, or even high schooler, I would not hesitate. Even if I know for sure they would leave once they got their degrees.

Is there a shot that the student can get through your admissions committee?  If this isn't realistic, you need to be up front with the student about his chances.  Your intentions may be admirable, but unless you are the decision maker for admission, maybe unrealistic.

The title of this question leaves much to be desired.  "Average" is really sugarcoating "unprepared" or more so "unqualified".  In any case, would this person go through the usual application process, or have they already, or is this a special bypass because they work there already and you're talking about pre-approving them?

I'm going to go with Either hire someone more qualified or change the project.  It sounds like it will take a couple of years before this student can meaningfully contribute to your current project.

If you tell him bluntly that he is lacking in several regards (as you have emphasized in the post), it can work both ways. It is possible that he may feel you are running him down, and that will likely backfire as far as your expectations of making him come up to your level are concerned. On the other hand, he can take it up as a challenge, and work hard to prove his worth to you, but even if it is successful, that's still going to be a hard PhD experience for him.
I think a better idea is to use a different strategy: Be very encouraging at every step. Praise him for what he is capable of doing. Assign some small tasks first up, that he can efficiently take care of. Then, soon enough, assign him a problem only slightly above his level in terms of theory/programming. He will struggle, and very likely fall short. Then  maybe, you can encourage him by saying something of the tune of

"Well, I think it will be easier for you to stumble across this roadblock if you read this article first. It can't be very hard to get across this efficiently, for someone who is as good as you. I mean, you've pretty much handled everything I've assigned to you thus far, reasonably well. Read this, tell me what do you understand out of this, and is that able to solve the problem."

Infusing confidence is positive mentoring. While you do that, keep upping the ante progressively. It will be a slow process, and will take a lot of time and effort on your part, but that's probably the only way of "making him curious".
Thus, in nutshell, the approach suggested is -
Small tasks, only slightly above his level, so that he keep working his way up without getting bogged down, and gradually taking it to higher and higher difficulty level. A sudden exposure to a very difficult problem will likely put out the fire, so please don't do that. And please be very encouraging at every step.

PS - Having said that, I'm afraid I agree with Boris Bukh's original comment: If he isn't prepared to handle PhD level problems, I wouldn't have very high expectations in terms of the work quality. But still, if there are no alternatives, and the only choice available with you is to mentor this bloke, the hard, slow method suggested in the post looks like the only viable method to me.
Hope that helps :)

It does help. I had been thinking along these lines, but things weren't very clear to me. I'll try to be patient and not scare him (something my own academic advisers didn't do).

You suggest the individual is not 'already curious' by which I assume you mean 'not passionate'. Lack of experience can be overlooked if a student is passionate because they will work hard for the reward of learning. If the student lacks interest, it will probably be a constant struggle.


text:
Is it bad to teach high school science for a few years before attending graduate school?
I've just graduated with my BS. I have been offered a job to teach biology at a christian university prep academy. I desperately need the money, and I was raised religiously, so I expect that I will be able to do the job fairly well. However, once I get a stable financial foundation, I want to get a PhD in cell and molecular biology. Will teaching at a Christian high school basically be "career suicide" for me? Will I forget all the complex things I've already learned?

First I thought that you are afraid that the Christianity of the university will be a problem. But you are actually talking about forgetting things. Since the latter depends on you and there is no way for us to tell how much you will forget, I voted to close the question.

Addressing the Christianity aspect: what does the curriculum of the high school look like? Does it conspicuously omit evolution? Teaching high-school biology itself (as long as you work to actively maintain your higher-level knowledge) isn't necessarily a career-killer. But if you are actively misleading students about the field you want to train in, there are going to be major concerns.

P.S. - worth considering - how much is the salary you're being offered to teach high school vs the stipend at your local university's PhD program?

Teaching experience is a good thing.  If you want to teach again after completing your PhD, the teaching experience will help you get a job.
However, I have doubts about your financial strategy.  In most STEM fields, you can expect to get paid more if you have a PhD.  The sooner you complete your PhD, the sooner you get the extra pay, and the more years you will keep the extra pay for.  I am not knowledgeable about teacher pay, but I suspect that the best American PhD programs pay students only slightly less than typical entry level high school teaching jobs in America.

While I agree about the claim that top PhD programs may pay stipends close to high school teaching jobs, it can take a while to get your ducks in a row to get into such a program! Also, even with a stipend, PhD programs can leave you with unexpected expenses - if you can save up a bit first, it'll reduce your risk of dropping out. And in the mean time, a job is better than no job! Maybe the key point is that doing a HS teaching job indefinitely - rather than as a necessary stopgap - is not a great idea financially.

Just Go ahead and teach at the high school and start grad school at the same time. That's what I did. Worked out great. You will continue to enhance your academic experience AND make bank. Without a doubt this is the way to go. (at least for computer scientists)

A lot of programs really frown upon external jobs. I couldn't imagine working a separate job while also doing grad school. It would probably take me twice as long and I'd publish half as much.

However, in software engineering if you have good quality industry experience you will be far more prepped for graduate school  than a recent graduate. I know I was for sure.

I don't disagree with previous experience being beneficial in grad school (my research is in software engineering). I disagree with working while going to grad school, unless you have very good reasons to do so. A PhD is for learning how to do research.

Touche. Example, if you are making 80k per year and your company pays for school, then if the whole phd program takes 6 years then all said and done you would have missed out on $500k and that is includucing minor raises and not even factoring in the tuition assistance and lack of student loans. Also if you have a very high end company that will help push your mind towards more innovative ideas as well. Yes it is harder on the student, I do not disagree with that, but it makes you better.

I've never heard of anyone getting a PhD in CS for financial reasons. They do so to become researchers. But regardless, if I am taking 6 years to do my PhD (about average in the US) working on it full-time then I can't imagine the quality of someone doing it while working another full-time job and still finishing in 6 years. There is no way I could publish at the rate I have.

Doing masters programs while working in some fields is normal; doing PhDs on the other hand rarely is, unless there is overlap (i.e., some companies will pay for their employees to get an engineering PhD, partly for the training, and partly to gain the benefits of working with a university; in this context it ends up being no different from working on a government academic grant: the work produced for the company and the research are the same).

A tangential answer: it is true that if you teach X at an institution that makes X be very different from what most professional X-ists think it is, you'll risk being stigmatized. Still, don't "protest too much". But, yes, you'd like to distance yourself from Bad Science, obviously.
Also, yes, teaching high school would typically degrade one's thinking, as I've experienced myself in going from one university to another: one can become lazy by accidentally thinking that ordinary things are "fancy", because naive or uninformed people aren't aware. That is a significant trap.


text:
How to indicate that I am an ERC reviewer in CV?
I would like to indicate in my CV that I am a reviewer for the European Research Commission. Would something like this work?
Other professional experience
• Reviewer for Science, bla bla bla...
• Reviewer of European Research Council (ERC) proposals.

Thank you

That's fine. If you are short on space, you can list it together with the journals (Reviewer for Science, ERC, Nature, ...).

I think it is pretty common to list such reviewing activities in CVs, at least I've seen it often. Usually, people list these activities under "Service", as in "volounteer service to the academic community".
However, I don't think these things are actually very important, especially at your (presumed) career stage: if you are an ERC reviewer, you must be pretty well known, maybe already a Full Prof. (or Associate), thus these details won't make your career any better, in my opinion. They might have more of an impact for junior people, as it means they are recognised as experts by the community, which, with less years under the belt, might be a relatively nice accomplishment.

Thank you, I agree that this is not going to make a big difference.


text:
Is it possible to pass a PHD without full understanding of ones own thesis?
This is likely to be a rather strange question.
I have been working in physics in an attempt to obtain a PHD.
My initial plan was entirely experimental, however I have not obtained enough data by itself.
This is due to a combination of difficult experiments, and temperamental equipment and its repeated failures; I was and am simply not capable of repairing the systems without any replacement components by myself.
This is ok I had thought, I can attempt to slightly extend a pre-existing theoretical framework to explain the few results that I do have.
However this is not my supervisor, or even departments expertise, so I have for the last year and half attempted this myself.
After much effort I have been able to replicate the prior theoretical calculations of the model.
However despite having the best grasp of the model out of anyone I have spoken to in my department, there are significant parts where I just do not have a clue.
I have reached a point where I have 2 months left to submit, and I do not yet have a sufficient understanding of the theory to be able to tell if it is actually valid for what I am trying to use it for.
Is it acceptable to just shut up and apply it anyway, and be deliberately vague and sparse in describing it and the necessary mathematics so that I do not include things I do not understand?
Or do I just throw in the towel and save myself another 2 months of absolute torment?
Many thanks.
Edit in response to comments:
it's rather that I do not understand some of the mathematics necessary.
There is a set of 6 eigenfunction equations, where they all have the same eigenvalues.
All the authors in the literature only care about the eigenvalues, where I need the eigenfunctions.
I had assumed that they were all the same, like the eigenvalues, but upon attempting to write a thesis chapter on them I now realise that they are not.
This is a problem as my calculations are based upon the eigenfunctions.
There is only one of the eigenfunction equations in the literature.
I am able to, with initial difficulty, solve it and obtain the same eigenvalues as the literature.
I then do some stuff with the eigenfunction that was not done, and obtain another different eigenvalue equation based upon an operator corresponding to the measuremrnt data I do have.
But I cannot derive the original equation in the literature, and I cannot derive the other, not stated in the literature, 5 equations.
Noone has worked on it for decades, and the original authors, and those who initially extended their work, are all dead.
Hence why I state that I do not understand it.
I can state what I have done, that I cannot derive the equations, and that I know it is wrong without the other 5 solutions.
I am 90% certain I can solve the other 5 equations if only I could understand how they are obtained.
Unfortunately I just get bogged down in attempting to follow the derivation, 1.5 years of attempting to follow it and I still just do not follow it.

Isn't there anyone else you can ask? 2 months is tight, you really should had done that earlier, but the world is bigger than you department

Answering the title question: No, you are very unlikely to obtain a PhD if you don't understand your own thesis. (The only chance would be if your dissertation committee failed in their duty to properly examine you.) You should try to find someone outside your department who can help. Surely people in your department can connect you with someone appropriate.

In your educational system, who actually decides whether you pass?  In many systems, it's effectively your supervisor, in which case you need to have a frank conversation with him or her.

There's "understanding", and then there's "understanding". I think it is typical that even very good PhD students have a relatively superficial understanding of the significance/context of their own work, simply and inevitably due to lack of experience. But if the question is about "ok-ness", that's more serious than "understanding" (depending on what we make these words mean, of course...)

For many complex experiments, no one, and I mean no one, has a full understanding of all the details.

Research builds on previous research. No researcher verifies every detail of every result that they cite (especially since to do so exhaustively, they would need to verify every detail in every source that the cited works themselves cite...). It is perfectly acceptable to e.g. invoke a known theorem in mathematics even if you haven't worked through a proof of that theorem. If the results that you are using are known results -- just cite them and move on with your life, especially if the derivation of those results are outside of the scope of your studies.

John Coleman, is it then acceptable to, as in this case, use an equation and its solutions without more than a superficial understanding?

@PlokavianNerveGas It's not ideal, but a lot of things aren't ideal. I'd say that a better understanding is usually better, but the most important things is to get it done!
And, presumably, there is a period of time after your submission but before your viva/defense? That is time that you can use to work on your understanding of the problem, if you still deem it necessary.

Of course, it would be good if someone around you can help you see what needs to be done to legitimize your use of "the other 5 equations". If you post to MathStackExchange, someone might be able to help, for example, if no one physically nearby can.
In any case, honesty and at least a nominal "dispassion" about things is the best approach, I think. Say what you assume, say what you can verify, say what previous sources say, etc. It's ok, I think, if your results are "relative" (=relative to assuming that certain sources are ok, plus assuming that certain extensions, which you've tried but failed (so far) to validate yourself first-hand, are ok...), as long as you are very clear on what your results are relative to.
Don't bluff... :)

Ok , so I shall be absolutely clear on what exactly the problem  I think is, and not attempt any obfuscation. This can then be good enough or not.

Or do I just throw in the towel and save myself another 2 months of absolute torment?

Nobody except you would be able to decide. But, given what you write, failing could be an option. Academia is a hard sport, and your health might be more important than some theory. I see bad examples around me.
In case you decide to proceed, here are some thoughts:

Ask an online service (such as Google scholar) for which papers cite the  original framework. Some of the authors referencing the framework might be living. Write them e-mails.
Apply Feynman's problem-solving algorithm. (It's not a joke, I'm very serious.) In less extravagant terms, improve your working style.
Apply for an extension.
...

Bear in mind that, after all, the problem might be unsolvable with the methods at your disposal.
E.g., the mature Ostrogradsky once asked Paris mathematicians for help for solving a particular problem. They took quite some time, and finally responded "This task can be solved only by one person: the Russian professor Ostrogradsky. He lives in Petersburg. You should contact him.".
But one proper piece of advice: no torment; go home at 6pm whatever you do.

Do you mean the famous, look at the problem and write down the solution, Feynman method?

@PlokavianNerveGas Do not skip step 2.

@JeffE I shall think as hard as is possible without shattering my fragile psyche.

For a PhD you should demonstrate two things: that you have become an expert in your (very very small) chosen topic, and that you have learned how to do credible research in that topic. From your description you don't seem to have demonstrated either at this point, so I would find it concerning if you did get a PhD.
Kicking in the towel isn't the only option though.

You say no-one in your department understands the material. But it is extremely unlikely that no-one in the world does. There are many theoretical physicists, and many mathematicians. Even if they are not familiar with the exact problem, there will be someone you can talk to who knows far more about eigenfunctions than you seem to.
Get an extension. If you've been allowed to go substantially beyond the expertise of those supervising you where you don't understand and no-one else is supporting you, then someone has not really been taking their responsibilities seriously enough.
Try and find a summer school on the mathematics you need.
Explore the options for graduating with a lower degree.

-1 For all we know the OP is an expert in the experimental side of the matter. It seems like a series of factors + lack of anticipation from themselves and their supervisor led to this situation.

Ah, well the two months is the extension. I was also the impression that supervision was meant to be functionally nonexistent once one had a plausible research plan near the start of ones phd? Would the phd not then only indicate your supervisors research ability and ones ability to follow instruction otherwise?

@PlokavianNerveGas, I think one's advisor is meant to help!!! Otherwise, what's the point? Contrary to myths, a PhD student does not become a world expert in a few months or years, but, rather, needs some advice from experts, that is, their advisor and others.

@user347489 Yes, they may well be an expert in the experimental side. But they've written a theoretical thesis. I'm not saying it's entirely their fault, but they have still not met the requirements of a PhD.

@PlokavianNerveGas A PhD is an apprenticeship as a researcher. Your supervisor should be training you to be a researcher.

@PlokavianNerveGas https://www.findaphd.com/advice/doing/phd-supervisor-expectations.aspx

@PlokavianNerveGas No, higher education is not just providing the time and library resources. Otherwise what would the teacher be there for? There is also guiding the use of time to relevant resources, and helping with the interpretation of those resources where you get stuck. And providing a 'big picture'.

@PlokavianNerveGas To be a successful researcher, you don't just need to know about your topic. You need to know what the relevant journals and conferences are, and how to engage with them successfully. You need to meet other researchers who can work with you. You need to know the background skills for your research (in your case the mathematics of eigenfunctions). Your supervisor should have assisted you in gaining these skills, either by teaching you themselves or directing you to other resources.

Thank you for your advice.
I have made it to the end of the PhD process, and while I may have passed, I do not think that I should have; I honestly cannot say that I have skills or knowledge suitable for a PhD, and by passing I have undermined the value of all other PhD's by association.
This has had the effect of completely and utterly obliterating my faith in, trust of, and support of higher education and publically funded research.
My best hope now is that my unearned and undeserved qualifications can trick a potential employer into giving me a opportunity to avoid financial destitution.

@PlokavianNerveGas Congratulations on passing. Don't be too hard on yourself, and everyone else. It sounds like your feelings are probably largely based on just having spent many years working hard on something that didn't go well. I won't deny the possibility that you do not deserve a PhD at all, but it may be instead that your judgement of the minimum requirements/your achievementsis a bit out of line. There's a difference between 'got a PhD' and 'did well enough to continue a career in academia'. Also, even if you didn't do well, that doesn't mean no-one is achieving important results.


text:
Does publishing gives you an edge when applying for jobs in industry?
I’m in the verge of finishing my PhD next year. I already know I don’t want to follow an academic career; still, I’ve come this far and will see it through (well... I have have a salary too...). I’m starting to look for positions in industry and would like to know how much having publications is appreciated by recruiters. Point in case, some data and drafts have been pilling up in my hard-drive during the last couple of years. Being honest, none of them make for a memorable publication or a significant contribution to science, but there is enough material for two or three submissions to specialized journals. Is it worth putting time and effort in finishing these papers if I’m going into industry? Will my CV look better if I add some publications on it? PS: This is in the context of the US and Europe and I’m getting a PhD in a STEM field.

if I’m going into industry What kind of industry jobs are you after?

@scaaahu I have background in genetics, computational biology, statistics,  programming experience...

How will you show the company that you are actually competent at performing technical work? Zero publications from a PhD in a STEM field is a bad sign.

This depends upon your specific position within any given company. Check out Science Careers for discussions about this, but a summary of some examples for publishing and not publishing:

Some position will not require or expect any publications. These can be technical (e.g., run a machine all day or develop new proprietary methods), managerial, or other types such as sales.
Some positions will want prior publications to show that you can complete research projects but not expect you to publish when you are working them.
Some companies such as environmental consulting firms expect their scientists to publish so that they continue to be experts in their field and highlight their publications on their webpages (e.g., WEST).
Some companies publish with their clients (e.g., look at the author affiliations on this publication).

In summary, publication expectations in industry range from none to regular publications. I suggest you find people doing jobs you are interested in doing, get to know them, and see what their specific expectations are for publishing. The Ask-the-headhunter blog contains suggestions for breaking into new fields as does the previously mentioned Science Career page. Also, the Chronicle of Higher Education has many resource for people seeking "alternative" careers (e.g., here).

If you are getting a PhD, you will likely be in a job that tends to at least favor research somewhat. In my current job (enterprise data science, PhD in statistics), I do not write or publish any papers in journals. But we occasionally have to write patent applications or internal reports for our work. Having some documented experience in writing formal papers on your work is important. Published papers show that the community values your work. It tells management that someone beyond your advisor cares and that you would not just hand muffed through a PhD to clear room for more students.
Honestly, if I had a CV of someone with a PhD but no publications come across my desk, I would probably throw the application away. Unless the applicant had large amounts of other work (R packages, Patents, Turing Award, Fields Medal, etc) having no publications would raise major flags.
At the end of the day, it is not like someone is going to look at a CV with publications (even small ones) and say "Oh, he/she's published some papers...let's NOT hire this person. I really dislike applicants with publication experience. We certainly would not want to hire someone who has ever done any research!"

I'm not entirely sure there has ever been a Fields Medal winner applying to work in industry? Maybe Michael Freedman at Microsoft Station Q, but even that is a research institute at UC Santa Barbara. Or I'd be surprised if there was a Fields Medal or Turing Award winner with no publications. Seems like a superset relation.

Well, if rumors are true, a 28 year old Korean working for LG logistics is in line to win the Fields.


text:
I "fear" studying
I'm a very accomplished software developer and designer and over the years I've written millions and millions of lines of code, worked on everything from video and social media platforms to complex AI systems and I am very comfortable with C, Python & JavaScript.
Programming has become a part of my life but now I want more, I want to know more and I want to understand more.
For example I don't know a thing about Chemistry, Physics or Maths.
I would like to better my knowledge in these fields but my problem is that I have a perplexing "fear" of studying.
I can't even call it a fear, it's beyond that. It's like someone's dropped a 1000 tonne boulder on my heart and I don't know why this happens. I can sit for hours and hours (at times an entire day) and read documentation for a language / framework / library I've never used and I'll be fine but show me a study book and I freak out (inside).
I've tried all I could think of:

I've set myself a simple(er) schedule.
I've brought books meant for 16-18 year old's that lay everything out step by step.
I've studied for short(er) amounts of time.
I've even forced myself to stay seated studying for an hour or two.

By the end of all this the same thing always happens, I freak out (inside), feel like I'm "in danger" and leave the room. Not because I want to but because I feel like I need to.
I'm not actually "in danger" and I'd like to think that I'm a sane, calm and collected individual who can tell the difference between good / bad, right / wrong.

I'm an adult, is this even normal?
Could this mean I'm "losing it" or that I'm "going crazy"?
Is there a solution to my problem, if not how can I work one out?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just really worried that this could be the start of something bigger rather than just another "fear".
Thanks for taking the time to read this, I really appreciate it.

While I'm sorry you're going through this, I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it doesn't seem to be primarily an academic problem. This isn't a question that is best answered by experts in academia and doing research, so we're not really the right people to answer this.

Consider consulting a professional who works with people with anxiety - they are probably better positioned to help you, than the grad students and professors that hang out on this site.

Look up Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, I'm not an expert but it sounds like something that may be well suited for your kind of problem and could be worth exploring.

"I'm an adult, is this normal?" - No, but it's not too uncommon.
"Could this mean I'm going crazy?" - You could have issues with anxiety, but I don't think the term 'crazy' is appropriate (it's poorly defined with unjustly negative connotation).
"Is there a solution to my problem?" - Yes. It could be a past event that's haunting you (you can work through this using psychodynamic therapy), or it could be negative thought patterns such as fears of failure or feeling incompetent (you can work through this using CBT, as @DanRomik suggested). [cont.]

[cont.] Either way, it's great that you're actively seeking to address your challenges (it may well lead to "something bigger", as you said). Talk to an experienced psychotherapist - they help clients with problems similar to yours quite often. Apologies if this is hard to read; you can't insert line breaks in comments.

There are many, many therapists out there, but it can be a challenge to find one whose techniques fit what you described.  I suggest you try to find one who has had specific training in Exposure and Response Prevention.  If you want to know a bit more about this, take a look at https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/78068/is-there-a-place-in-academia-for-someone-who-compulsively-solves-every-problem-o/78073#78073

@ff524 It's ok and thanks for the suggestions I'll look into it.

@adam.al It's ok, and also thanks for clearing those things up. Appreciate it.

@aparente001 Thanks for your suggestion. I'll look into it.

@scaaahu I write way more than 100 lines a day and I sometimes go an entire day or two (up to 17-20 hours a day) working on the a project. You can write a tonne in that amount of time. Oh and as for my age I'd rather not say :)


text:
Should I share my external grant with my supervisor? He reasons that he supported me earlier
I secured a grant from my university for traveling to a conference. But it was not enough and so my supervisor supported me. There are 5 other students who got the university grant and he supported them as well. I had also applied for ACM grant and I secured it but I receive it only after I visit the conference.
Now my supervisor has ordered me to give the complete ACM grant to him because he supported me. I am not sure if it is ethical. I wish to use this money for another conference which I plan to attend. I am OK with giving the money to him or school, but since I got the grant it should be spent on my endeavors and not be used by anybody else. Am I wrong to think like this?
Edit : My application to ACM grant was independent. I wrote the application myself without support from anyone. In fact, the paper which I wrote was also written by me, with some changes from another supervisor. The idea was completely mine, as well - with no inputs from anybody else.
Edit : In the light of this event and other instances of being bulleyed into doing things which are unacceptable to me I have decided to quit working with my supervisor. Does this make any difference? If at all I have to return, I wish to return the money to university and not to this supervisor.

I'm not sure what ACM is. Also, are you in US, or elsewhere?

ACM is a body/association for computer scientists. Like IEEE for electrical engineers (/computer scientists).

He supported you for the travel, so let's say he gave you $X. Now, you got the grant, say $Y. Does he want the money he gave you back, so X, or does he want the whole Y? It might be reasonable to ask for X, as you got travel grands from elsewhere and X can be used for other students, but he shouldn't be asking for all of Y...

Take into account that ethically (and often legally) speaking you cannot be reimbursed more than once for a conference trip.
I am assuming that the ACM grant was a travel grant to cover the expenses for the conference, right?
The most reasonable option, given that you found external funding, is to return the money from the university grant + your professor's, using that same ACM grant.
It's not your professor's business to decide what you do with the remaining money from that grant, if there is any.
Your professor should actually be happy that you were able to get external funding so you could attend at 0 cost for the University and his team.
Saying that you have to pay back more to him than he "loaned you" because "he supported you" tells a lot about your professor already: he does not support or help students because he considers it's his duty or job, but in exchange for future rewards.
Unfortunately, this bullying, favor/grant-exchanging, mob-behavior is not new to many of us at all.

Yes it is a travel grant. And my supervisor gets separate grant from university for conference travels, he is not paying from pocket!  Moreover, I have had enough with this person. I will not work with him anymore. I am requesting the university to help me get a new supervisor, or whatever that process is.

@Damodar While the money he gave you come from another grant, and not his pocket, keep in mind that any grant has a limit. Because he supported you for this conference, it is possible that in the future he won't have money to support another student for a conference, or even not to travel himself.

@Damodar Also, keep in mind that you are basically telling him: I got some travel grant, but I will use YOUR funds for this conference because I want to save my funds for something else. BUT, if he asking to be reimbursed more money than he used from his grant, that is totally unrealistic.

OK. I got it. I will return him the money, even though I hate that he ordered me to do it. I wish I could return it to school instead because they gave me the grant and a large part of if.

In general you can use grant  money only for the purposes you applied for and the rules for what the money can be used are usually quite detailed.
Hence, you have to check the rules and your application of the ACM grant you've gotten. Usually a grant comes with a specific description for what it can be used and for what it can't. If your grant says, for example, that only the recipient can use it for traveling, then you would violate the rules of that grant if you would let somebody else use it for anything. If you don't have the regulations and rules for your grant at hand, ask the grant agency, i.e. the ACM in this case.
The fact that you wrote the application yourself without support from anyone is irrelevant.
Also, the fact that the grant was given retroactively is irrelevant. You should use it according to the guidelines.

The money is given after I have traveled. So in any case I cannot use it for traveling as I have already traveled. I will ask ACM about it. The reason I mentioned about support is because my supervisor claims that he supported me so I must give the full amount.

@Damodar Travel grants are often given retroactively. That is, the recipient pays for the travel themselves, and is then reimbursed by the travel grant. Is the grant for more than the total your supervisor gave you? I don't see anything untoward about reimbursing him for the full amount he paid you.

He did not pay from his pocket. He paid from another grant. So technically this money goes for him to use in any way he wants.

@Damodar Yes, of course it is not from his own pocket but perhaps he would prefer to use that money from the other grant on something else. You're trying to find an ethical impediment where there is none. You just need to sort this out on a personal level with your supervisor.

I you received retroactive money for travel to a specific conference that your supervisor paid for you to go to, you should absolutely make every effort to look into the official ways of getting your supervisor's money back into your supervisor's account through your school's accounting offices. Usually, your department will have a staff member who would know how to go about this.
I wouldn't just sign the check over to your supervisor to establish a petty cash fund.  This isn't how this sort of stuff is done.  Whether the funding agency allows you to keep any surplus for any use you see fit, you'd have to look into, but I would consider that ingrateful behavior to a mentor who was generous enough to fund your travel.
The clear risk is that your boss will never pay to send you to a conference again.
One alternative, especially if administrative issues make the transfer of funds difficult, and if you are allowed to spend surplus however you want, is to work with your supervisor to find something on his wish list that would also be of use to you, and buy it.

My supervisor wants all such grants to be submitted to him so that it can be used for the group. That is my problem. It was a grant which I got for my travel. So I must have a say in how it is used.

Money is fungible.  He gets his money back, and can do with it as he wants.    He has no right to turn is encumbered money into free money, though.

First, as already mentioned in a previous answer, check out the rules for that grant.
It seems a retroactively paid grant, which makes fully logical that you should give it back to your supervisor. In this light, he simply anticipated a sum that else you should have anticipated.
About the difference, it depends on the first point, and on its amount (does not make sense if it is 10 euros).
Whenever I secured external grants for attending conferences, normally the latter were already paid by my supervisor. It is clear that I went back to him to tell the good news.
He always said I should keep them (even as my pocket money). In addition to the fact that he was happy to do that, I suspect that it could have been not very simple to put that amount of cash into the group balance, since I, as an individual, I would have been the source. However this is his - or its secretary - problem.

It is ethical to ask,  if the ACM amount is equal or less than what he gave you. If it is higher then he should provide a reason why he thinks you owe him more. Simple as that.


text:
What are the challenges in changing a PhD supervisor after 2/3 of PhD is done
I am doing good in my Ph.D. but I do not like my supervisors. The following are the reasons:

I am forced to work in a very specific area and there is almost no room for creativity. Any related idea which goes against the "vision" of my supervisor is dealt with fierce questions. If I answer them all, then I am told that until someone else with reputation does it, I should not try it as I do not have a proven track record. I am forced to continue on previous PhDs, which I did and have satisfied. But I wish to explore my ideas too.
My supervisor openly claims that he is a great researcher and expects students to worship him. He has lots of grants and publications, but I am amazed as to how little he knows in the field. I can say this because I have interacted with very good and humble professors from top universities and seen the depth in their knowledge. In comparison, my supervisor is chalk, if they are cheese.
My supervisor is cunning. He maneuvers students and gives veiled threats if required. Forces me to publish in conferences which his friends or colleagues organize, even if they are not good.
He forced his Post Doc student as my another supervisor in order to fast track his career, without any kind of discussion with me.

After two years, I have lost interest in my work and the passion has gone. All I do is push myself because I need to graduate. My creativity has no room and I hardly learn anything new. But on paper, I am progressing well because my supervisor had his way with me.
Now I have no interest in further continuing this association. I need to either quit my Ph.D. or look for another supervisor. If I do work with another supervisor at this stage, what could be the challenges?
Edit: I resolved my issue. I had a talk with the Dean. He told me about other students facing similar issues and offered me to help. He seems to have had a chat with my supervisor and suddenly I am offered more freedom. Another student had just switched because of the same reason and therefore my current supervisors had to change their attitude as this became a recurring phenomenon. The role of my primary supervisor has been substantially reduced. I have more say in what I wish to do and where I want to publish. And if I still do not like my environment it is possible to switch and school will help.

I will never bad mouth anyone. It does not help me.

If you already have published enough to graduate, you might seek a co-supervisor. In this way, you work in a field you already know at a moderate pace, while you develop new skills.

I have been forced to have 3 supervisors already. My main supervisor only accepts those ppl under his wing who are yes men. So my two other supervisors are yes men and working under him to further their careers. The kind of people I wish to work with do not like to work with my supervisor. So they will never co-supervise! My supervisor just does not care about what I need anyways!

This would be a much better question if you deleted the entire enumerated list, which is largely irrelevant for the question asked in the title.

You got more freedom, I read. Therefore I conclude it is possible to make agreements. Now you have get to get your passion back. Would it be possible for you to select another (additional) supervisor as primary supervisor? Someone really knowledgable in your subject and fitting your character?

Unfortunately, it's too late for my Ph.D. I am planning to finish it. I started collaborating with my previous supervisor again. As for passion I love technology and will continue doing research with like-minded collaborators. I am also making friends with people in industry. I may have wasted time which I will never get back but I cannot do anything about it. Thanks @Alice

I have seen a lot of people switching advisers during my PhD. There are a few challenges I think you will face:

Your adviser, knowing his personality, won't let you go easily. He might tell other faculty there will be consequences if they take you as a student. It depends on his relationship to his colleagues and position within the department if he can make good of his threats. You should choose your future adviser from the faculty he cannot influence. If that is not possible, be prepared to transfer to a different graduate school. You may need to take a qualifier exam there again. They could also be happy to admit you if you have taken it already at your current school.
If you need to switch to a very different field, you should expect another 2-3 years as a beginner. You would graduate later.
You seem to be already burnt out. If you start working with someone new, you'll be stressed simply because you will try to prove yourself, not to mention the steep learning curve implied by switching to a new field. It would be a good idea to take a vacation before.
Some departments have rules that limit the availability of funding from teaching assistantships once you have been long enough in the program. Make sure your new adviser can support you.
If you have family, you have to make sure they understand that you were forced to switch advisers and you might finish the PhD later.

Given what you wrote, I believe switching advisers would be a good move. If you move within the same department, you have the advantage of knowing already who are the best advisers. If you don't, talk to their students and postdocs before switching.

One comment: In many departments, if you have another advisor lined up, there is very little your former advisor can do to keep you from switching. And if he's unhappy with you, he may not even want to stop you.

I am not the first one to leave him.

I know of at least three good advisors in the same department, after discussion with other students and auditing their courses. In fact, they collaborate with each other. But not sure if my current supervisor can influence them.  Any suggestions on how I should approach them? I do not wish to bad mouth my current supervisor, even though I am quite sure that he is not liked in that circle. One lecturer, in fact left because of my current supervisor.

@Damodar You don't need to bad mouth him. They know him. Just tell them things aren't working out in your group for you. You are not making progress towards your degree and you would like to be more independent as a researcher. The most you should say about your adviser is that your working styles clash, and you would need a little more freedom to chose methods and explore your own ideas. Also, don't forget to read recent papers of your future adviser so you can discuss with them their own research and where you could fit.

@Magicsowon Should I email them or talk in person? Should I prepare a 10 min presentation and request their time?

@Damodar It is better to talk in person. You can ask for a 10 minutes appointment via email if they seem to be busy, but in my department, I used to just walk into professors offices. Be honest with them and don't worry if they may end up not taking you. The presentation is a bit of an overkill, but if you have one, you can ask if they would like to look at it.

@Damodar what happend?

@SSimon I am still contemplating and assessing my options. Will decide in 40 days - after my brief vacation.

I resolved my issue. I had a talk with the Dean. He told me about other students facing similar issues and offered me to help. He seems to have had a chat with my supervisor and suddenly I am offered more freedom. Another student had just switched because of the same reason and therefore my current supervisors had to change their attitude as this became a recurring phenomenon. The role of my primary supervisor has been substantially reduced. I have more say in what I wish to do and where I want to publish. And if I still do not like my environment it is possible to switch and school will help.

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