text:
How to Scale or Curve the Grades for an Examination?
I am the teaching assistant for a course in economics, and one of my responsibilities is marking examinations.
I had just finished marking the midterm, and the grades were very poor. The details are (approximately):
Mean: 23%
Standard Deviation: 5%
Min: 4%
Max: 68%
Number of Students: 84
Upon consultation of the professor, I was told to scale the grades. The method he had given me  was to add a fixed amount to each student's grade such that the mean would be 72%.
To me, this seems to be an inadequate way to correct the distribution of grades and would be unfair to the students who did score much higher than the class mean.
My question is, what is the best way to rescale the grades for an examination such that the it is fair to all the students in the class?

This is subjective; there is no "best" way. Also: talk to the professor you're grading for about your concerns.

I wouldn't rescale the grades at all.  I'd just throw out the exam entirely (but separately track the few students who did well).

Clearest explanation I've seen of different methods of curving scores with analysis of the pros and cons of each method.

First, let's acknowledge that this was a horrible test.  You have almost no power to discriminate between the different abilities of the students with a mean of 23% and a standard deviation of 5%.
Then you have to decide what to do.  Personally, I'd decrease the weight of this test in acknowledgement that it was a poor test (or allow students the option of letting something else count for more).  But if you just want to solve it numerically, there are the following constraints:

You can't have a top score of more than 100%
The mean is required to be 72%
You want all differences to still mean something

If you add 49% to the grades, you get a mean of 72% but your top score is now 117%.  You could cap it at 90-95% or so, but the top students would be indistinguishable.  So you'd have to scale back by squashing the grades also, e.g. by multiplying the difference from 23% by (28/45) to get it back in range.  This will make the students distinguishable but not meaningfully so.
Really the best option is to change the grading scheme so that you have a higher mean and more distinction between different scores (to the extent that this is possible).  For example, you can give a number of points for attempting a problem at all, a number of points for writing down anything which has a bearing on the right answer, etc..
You can just directly transform your old scores into new scores with the mean and deviation you like, however.  Let icdfG(p) be the value at which the probability of getting a lower percentile score p from a Normal distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation is 1.  Then you can just calculate percentiles and map
new score = 72 + icdfG(percentile)*10

or something to get a mean of 72 and a standard deviation of 10.  (Your top student in a class of 84 would have a percentile of 83.5/84 if you did it this way.)  Your top student would have a score of 97 under this scheme (and the second to top a score of 93)
Otherwise, you're probably best off using a nonlinear transform; arctan is a nice function for that since it will squash down the tails; and you probably want a SD of at least 10 not 5, so you could do something like
new score = 72 + 50/Pi * arctan((score - 23)/10)

which would give a max score if 93.5, a min score of 54.7, and one standard deviation up and down would give 79.4 and 64.6 respectively.
But again, the better options are to devalue the test as a bad test, and to change the grading scheme (an awful lot of work, but it will give fairer results).

Great answer, saved me from typing something very similar.

You can't have a top score of more than 100% — Why not?  Once you acknowledge that the grade is not even an approximation of the percentage of work done correctly, why does it need to be a percentage at all?

@JeffE - I see your point, but some schools like grading out of percentiles and may not be amused that some student has a score of 220%.  Then again, whoever got that 68% did an awesome job; ten standard deviations above the mean!

@RexKerr: But how would the school know?  Instructors normally report only the overall grade in the course, not grades on individual exams.  (I'm assuming this isn't a course where one exam determines the entire course grade.)

@JeffE - Students talk about things, and complain if they feel that something's wrong.  Being graded on the curve when someone has a score of 220% can feel pretty demotivating (even if the curve isn't sensitive to that outlier).  So if the school cared, I wouldn't assume they wouldn't find out.  Chances are good that the school does not, but they could.

@RexKerr: Before savaging the test, perhaps the problem lies with the scoring standards.

I am confused, how are you computing power? Can applying a monotonic transform (i.e., arctan) really increase the power? I would think the variability of the individual test scores would influence the power (i.e., a 100 question exam versus a 10,000 question exam)

@DanielE.Shub - It doesn't do anything to the power in isolation, but if you add scores which make up 20% of the grade and have a 2% spread to scores that make up 20% of the grade and have a 10% spread, only the latter spread is really going to matter to most students' grades.  So if it is in fact the case that the variation is not random within the small spread that was generated by this test, you don't want to keep that spread too tiny in comparison to others.  You can choose the spread to match what you think is a fair estimation of the actual ability of this test to discriminate.

@aeismail - A test where only 23% of the questions are answered perfectly is still a lousy test.  So unless the scoring system is viciously nonsensical (you lose all points for question 4 if you misspelled anything in question 2), it was not appropriate for the students' level of ability.  Also, note that I recommended revisiting the scoring standards to try to salvage the situation.

A test where only 23% of the questions are answered perfectly is still a lousy test. — I strongly disagree!!  Perfection should be rare.

@JeffE - That's why you make some questions harder than others.  Getting them stuck on every single question is not a good way to help students demonstrate their proficiency.  (It is a boon to those students particularly adept at jumping between questions when stuck.)

That may be why you make some questions harder than others, but it's definitely not why I make some questions harder than others.  Seeing how far people can climb up the mountain is a fantastic way to have them demonstrate their proficiency at climbing, even if nobody reaches the top.  There is a vast difference between "not perfect" and "stuck".

@JeffE - Making a majority of the questions an exercise in near-limitless climbing means that every test is about management and prioritizing as much as or more than the subject matter.

There are several ways you could scale the tests. You could take the top score, make it 100%, then add the same amount to everyone's scores. You could take the average, add a certain amount to everyone's score so that the new average is some value you desire. You could have a sliding scale so those with lowest scores get most added, while those with highest scores get least added.
Without knowing the desired outcomes or what constitutes an "A", "B", or "C", it is hard to say what you should scale your scores to.

Take the sqrt of the raw grade (present raw grade as a percent) and you will get something that looks ok.

It's not an answer or even comment!

Do exactly what he said!  Not from slavish obedience but because it works surprisingly well.  IOW add 49% (= 72%-23%) to each person's grade. [Actually now that I think about it...even simpler is to just add 50%.  Very easy to understand.]
New scale:
    Mean: 73%
    Min: 54%
    Max: 118%
The average is now a "low C". (Assuming normal 60-70-80-90 F-D-C-B-A boundaries.)  This mean is probably a little lower than normal but is reasonable enough that you don't get cries of murder for the tough exam.  (Especially since they are getting thrown a bone versus no change.)  And probably the class needs some remnant of a "spanking" for doing poorly.  So low C is a good mean for this individual test.
The min will be an F now but not such a killer that semester is lost for those who failed it (if they do well rest of course can pass the course, maybe even eke out a gentleman's C).  And there will probably be a handful of Fs but not that many.  Some failures out of a group of 84 is normal.
The student who got 68% will have an over 100% mark now.  Which she probably deserves.  It quells some of the complaining from the Hermione Granger types that feels slighted when the standards are lowered after they perform well and the class gets a break.
I think if you try it, you will find a very reasonable grouping into F/D/C/B/A set.  Plus it has the added advantage of doing what you were told (merely as a bonus).  Plus...you don't need to totally overthink this.  It is one test out of a few.
One further added benefit is the simplicity.  Instead of having to explain some gawdawful transform (like binning each quintile or square root of arctangents).  You just have a quick difference.  Easy to process for you.  And easy to understand for the class. Sometimes simple better beats complicated perfect.


text:
Making myself an attractive candidate for a research lab (no prior lab experience)
I graduated with a B.S. in mathematics but have always had an interest in chemistry. In particular, I enjoyed the labs. In fact, in the near future I plan to become involved in a Food Science program. It would be greatly advantageous to me to be able to do work in a research lab. Unfortunately, my actual lab experience is weak (Gen. Chem, physics. My Organic chem had no lab section).
I'd like some suggestions on how to improve one's usefulness in the lab without actually working in the lab.
A couple ideas I had:

Learn Statistical analysis / database software
Practice identifying spectroscopy (NMR, Mass, ...)
Reading about technique or experimental set-ups anyway.

Is there anything else? Is identifying spectra even useful, or is it all done by computer now? Are there (free) online resources for any of this?
More specifically, for my case:
I'd like to work in a food science lab. So the main focus would primarily lie in organic chemistry, biochemistry, and microbiology. Possibly in flavor chemistry or food analysis, but I don't yet have a more specific research area in mind.

Can you specify what kind of chemistry you are interested in? There are many differences between the sub-disciplines, and the answer will vary according to your interests.

@eykanal I tried to add a little bit. Let me know if it helped.

I'd like some suggestions on how to improve one's usefulness in the lab without actually working in the lab.

This might not be possible, but I would love to be wrong.
Experience in the (chemistry) lab is about using your hands to perform specific and often complex tasks with dexterity and proficiency. Many of these tasks also have associated hazards, which through experience can be avoided or minimized.
I am afraid that if you are interested in pursuing a career in chemistry or another lab science, you will need to get some experience in the lab. The easiest way would be take a few courses. Given your interests, you should at minimum take and organic lab course and a microbiology lab course.
Let's take as an example a simple distillation, a common organic lab technique. No amount of reading about the technique prepares you for the many things that could go wrong. At least one of these has potentially disastrous consequences. If you take a course where you do several (as a good introductory organic chemistry lab should), you have the opportunity to learn how to do distillations in the presence of another person who will catch your mistakes. At the graduate/professional level, you are supposed to know what the common mistakes are and avoid them entirely.
Things that could negatively impact a simple distillation:

The joints are not sealed and the vaporized liquid escapes.
No means of encouraging nucleation during boiling is used and the liquid in the still pot bumps.
Your still pot has a star fracture and shatters when heated.
Your variable transformer blows a fuse, and you have no heat.
Your variable transformer is set too high and you superheat your liquid (and it bumps) and apparatus.
Your thermometer is not placed low enough into the neck of the 3-way adapter and you do not record accurate temperatures.
You forget to turn on the water in your condenser and you collect no distillate.
You (against someone's better judgement) try to distil something that thermally decomposes and the apparatus catches fire, explodes, or something otherwise disastrous occurs. At the very least you do not get the distillate you though you were getting.
You distil to dryness, and the apparatus superheats.
You distil an ether to dryness and the residual peroxides explode.
You start to take apart your apparatus before it has cooled (hot glass looks identical to cold glass and has a high heat capacity so it does not radiate a lot of heat) and give yourself second degree burns.
You fill your still pot more than halfway, which prevents there from being enough room to establish a good liquid-vapor equilibrium, causing the liquid to superheat and bump.
You get the idea.

I don't want to be a total downer. If you had told me that you were interested in theoretical or computational chemistry, I would have told you to read up on analytical and physical chemistry and apply to a program in theoretical and computational chemistry. You do very little wet-lab work in those subfields of chemistry. However, since food science involves a lot of wet-lab work, you need to have some preliminary hands-on experience.

Aye, and most of these I learned from experience in the lab. An introductory lab book might discuss a few of them, but does not have room for every possible mishap. You need a human instructor who can pass down wisdom.

Thank you for your detailed answer. I guess I'll just continue studying coursework to get a leg up for when I go back in then.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to negotiate with referees of your paper
I have submitted a paper several years ago and its referee process took about three years and I had to revise the paper six times to get the final approval. The paper had two helpful and knowledgable referees and I appreciate their comments and suggestions, but I have also had the following problems with their suggestions:

sometimes their comments contradicted each other. For example, one of them wanted me to add a discussion and when I added that part he wanted me to remove it in the next revision.
they often wanted to expand the scope of the paper, but due to some technicalities I had to consider some restrictions to get the expected result.
they gave me new comments and proposed new modifications after every single revision, while they could suggest all their comments in their first report and this made the referee process this long.
one of the referees wanted me to address some related works in other papers in my paper, which was actually unnecessary.

I pretty much obeyed all their suggestions and comments and finally the paper was accepted and now it has been published. Although I learned a lot during the referee process, I wished I could negotiate with referees and do not have to obey them in every little detail. Besides I had this feeling that I have somehow lost my freedom as the author of the paper during this process and I have no control on my paper any more. I had to do whatever they asked me even if I was not completely convinced it is a right thing to do. I have also had some of the abovementioned problems with the referees of my other papers. You perhaps know that journals often have this policy that you either should implement all the changes suggested by referees or withdraw the paper. This policy leaves little room for negotiation. So my questions are:
An author, in order to discuss his/her points with referees and do not obey some of their suggestions and comments  or ask them to not delay the referee process further, what is the best strategy to negotiate with referees? Is there any diplomatic way for this negotiation or we have to obey referees all the time? Have you ever had similar problems with referees of your papers? How did you overcome these problems?

While I claim not to be an expert, one strategy I've used when trying to clarify confusing issues is to ask the editor for clarifications. As the reviewers tend to be anonymous, the only way to get at them is through the editor. Another action is to "rebut" or comment on how you chose one of two conflicting routes in the "summary of changes" document where you write where you made the changes in the manuscript to address reviewer comments. In my experience though I've never had outright conflicts or terrible suggestions in multi-phase reviews.

@Irwin: Thanks for sharing your insight. Actually I discussed some of my points after every revision in summary of changes (I used to call it the list of changes). But again, I was receiving new comments about other things in the next report.

You don't negotiate with the referees.  You negotiate with the editor.

You don't negotiate with referees. You just answer their comments and remarks (and it is typical that to some of their points the answer will be "no" (e.g. "We consider this section  important (because [...]) and decided to keep it as it is in the next version of manuscript.")).

This is a response drawn from my combined editor/author/reviewer experience (for what it is worth). As has already been stated, you negotiate with editors not with referees. In most cases (there are likely always exceptions) the reviewers provides reports to the editor who makes decisions based on these and should, in my opinion, also evaluate the review reports and provide you with some direction for how to proceed. Reviewers will also provide the editor with comments that you will not see and which can influence the editors final remarks. I think some editors are not taking their responsibility seriously when they let the reviewers "dictate" changes. A review is an (educated) opinion (in the best case) and not a truth (we have to remember that as reviewers). The editor is not a god (or a semi-god) either and it is always possible to disagree with him/her (I have to remember that). Keep in mind that the editor still has the power to reject papers if he/she thinks it is in the best interest of the journal.

If reviews conflict, a good editor should provide you with some guidance. You can also weigh the conflicting views against each other. Sometimes one or the other are based on misconceptions which may result from unclear writing so always explore that avenue when you disagree with a comment.
Expand the scope. Again, I would expect an editor to provide some final direction. If none is given I think it is fair to approach the editor and state your opinion and ask for clarification.
Extending the process. This sounds quite unacceptable to me. I can possibly see this happening when getting new reviewers in after each round but again, the editor should put an end to the process at some point (sooner rather than later). I wonder what your expected turnover time would be for the journal you describe. Several years is completely unacceptable to me and within my field.
Requests to quote. If not necessary then they are not necessary. I would make my case to the editor and hope that it is clear why no additions will or should be made.

So if your journal is run well, you should be able to get some direction out of your editor by asking short direct questions about whatever issues you have (suggest how you would like to solve them as well). If you have severe problems like what you describe, I think you need to re-evaluate where to publish in the future. As with all of us include some self-evaluation as well to see if you can improve from any of the problems you have encountered. I certainly have learned and hopefully improved my writing and publishing skills from publishing experiences.

The average time distance between submitting a paper and getting acceptance in that journal was about 1-1.5 years, but in my case it took about three years.

@VahidShirbisheh I guess turnover times can vary between journals and possibly between fields but even 1-1.5 years sounds on the high side.

In mathematics, it is okay.

boggle. Man, in my field I get cranky after six months.

@Vahid Shirbisheh: even in mathematics, 1 to 1.5 years in average is only ok for very selective journals. I consider it too long for regular journals, and do not hesitate to send a reminder after six months.

You perhaps know that journals often have this policy that you either should implement all the changes suggested by referees or withdraw the paper.

Which journals have such a policy?  I don't think this is the case for any AMS, MAA, or SIAM journal, for example, and I'm not aware of any journal with such a policy (although of course I have direct experience with only a small fraction of the journals in mathematics).  Here's how it works in the cases I'm familiar with:
Any changes suggested by the referees are merely suggestions, which do not need to be followed if the author and editor are in agreement.  If the change involves fixing a mistake or correctly attributing work, then no responsible editor will accept the paper until the situation is resolved (either by making the change or establishing that it is not needed).  Matters of clarity are also taken seriously.  However, some referee suggestions are just opinions that the author may reasonably disagree with.
It's perfectly reasonable to write to the editor and say "Here's a new draft of my paper.  I've made changes A, B, and C proposed by the referees, and I'm grateful to them for identifying these issues, but I have not implemented D and E.  I think those changes are not truly needed, because ..."

what is the best strategy to negotiate with referees?

I'd think of it instead as negotiating/discussing with the editor.  The editor is the one who makes the decision, with the referees providing advice and expert opinions.  Ideally, you'll be able to convince the referees that not all of their proposed changes are necessary, but the editor is the only person you need to convince if the referees are stubborn.
Editors are used to this.  As an editor, I've occasionally written an acceptance letter (conditional on revisions) that says explicitly that only some of the changes are really needed, and even when I don't say so authors certainly don't always make all the changes.

In journals published by Springer, after receiving every referee report, the author has this option to submit a modified version or refuse further revision. I have been considering this option as withdrawing the paper. But I suppose I was wrong.

It would be unusual to make no changes at all in response to referee suggestions, but you can make just a subset of the changes.

Even if you make no changes at all (which would be unlikely), you'd still have to write a cover letter explaining why you made that choice. And in any case, the referees are a good sample of the typical readership of your paper, so if you are explaining something to them in the cover letter, often you'd better move the explanation into the paper in the first place.

Though they make valid points, I feel that the existing answers (esp. by @Peter Jansson and @Anonymous Mathematician and the comment by @JeffE) put too much weight in the role of editors. I think this might be misleading for some folks, and (coming along quite a bit later) I want to try balance those answers out with another perspective informed by own experiences.
Not only can you negotiate with reviewers, but any time you submit a revision with a response letter, you must negotiate with them.
In my experience, editors are largely hands-off. Typically they won't read the paper in detail, but instead they try to provide a meta-review: a consensus verdict from the reviews given to them and a summary of the main points to address. The editors make the final decision about rejection/acceptance based on the information they have.
But crucially, when you submit a revision and an accompanying response letter, it is the reviewers that will look again at the paper and the treatment of their comments and decide how to proceed with their next review (and it is those reviews that are, in turn, considered by the editor). When you submit a response letter, you are implicitly negotiating with the reviewers: you are telling them which comments you addressed and how; more importantly you are telling them which comments you only partially addressed or didn't address at all and why; and you are effectively negotiating with them as to why your paper should now be considered ready for acceptance.
To be clear (and this is mentioned in other answers) it is not a good idea to only address the comments given by the editor. Your response letter should be aimed primarily at the reviewers. If the reviewers are happy, the editor is typically happy, not the other way around.
And yep, sure, reviewers will frequently give you comments you disagree with, but you must respond to everything and I highly recommend at least compromising by partially addressing every comment. Sometimes it is even sufficient to treat the spirit of the comment, not the literal content. For example, a reviewer might push you to do additional work that you feel is very clearly out-of-scope; but then you should ask yourself why the reviewer brings this up? Maybe it wasn't made clear in the paper that it was out-of-scope? In the response letter you can state that you did not present the additional work, but instead that you better clarified why it is considered out of scope in the introduction. This way you acknowledge that there was a flaw in the paper and that the reviewer has a point, but as an author, you chose a different solution to fix it.
(From the other side of the fence, I know that as a reviewer, I get p*ssed off when the comments I volunteered are not even responded to or are dismissed without good reason. Yes probably some of the comments I give are not useful to the authors but I want to at least see that they considered the suggestions.)

In summary, though the editors co-ordinate the revisions and the verdicts, it is the reviewers that provide the feedback and, in my experience, it is the reviewers you should aim to negotiate with towards getting your paper ready for acceptance.
Sometimes you may have genuine disagreement with a reviewer or will encounter the infamous adversarial reviewer. Making your case to the editor is then the best course of action. (If reviews are going around in circles for three years, as in this case for example, then it is the responsibility of the editor to step in. In fact, in the terminology of the adversarial reviewer, this is known as the "Iterated Goldilocks Method".)

Thank you for sharing your insight and the link to "How NOT to review a paper".

Peter Jansson and Jeff E are both on the editorial boards of journals; Anonymous Mathematician says s/he is, too. I expect they have a pretty good idea of the relationship between editors and referees.

@DavidRicherby, thanks for leaving a comment along with the downvote, but your comment makes it sound like you downvoted by answer because other users are on editorial boards (and appeal to authority is a poor form of argument). If you have a direct criticism of my answer I would be glad to hear it. For what it's worth, I'm on the editorial board of a journal too. Not every journal is the same, my perspective and experience is different from theirs, hence why I felt contributing an answer was important. In my opinion, you typically please the editors by pleasing the reviewers.

Read the editorial practices and author guidelines of your chosen journal carefully. The details will depend on the field, but I suspect most journals do not require authors to implement all changes suggested by referees. However, you are required to address all the points raised by the referees. (For example, Physical Review Letters does this; see their editorial practices and author guidelines.)
Referees are human and are not immune from making errors. If you believe a criticism of your paper is incorrect or a proposed change is superfluous or erroneous, you should state this (politely!) in your response. You alone are responsible for the quality and integrity of your publications, and you should not implement changes you disagree with. If you present a solid argument for why the changes should be rejected, a reasonable editor can and should let your version stand.
(Regarding multiple proposed corrections on material a referee has already seen, I feel that a polite request to the editor, after the first occurrence, that they expedite the review process by preventing such multiple corrections, is well within your rights.)
Most importantly, know the rules of the game. Read your chosen journal's editorial practices and all the author guidance at least once during the preparation and submission process of your paper, ideally before you submit, and certainly before you reply to a referee report. If a journal states that you must incorporate all referee proposed changes, and you are uncomfortable with this, choose another journal!

authors: Андрей Торин

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


text:
Is it peculiar for a department not to have any of its own PhD graduates as professors?
I have been doing research into graduate programs and have noticed that some departments have a representation of their own PhD graduates as professors while others have an absence.
For example, a department I have looked at in a top university in Canada had a faculty completely composed of PhD graduates from top American schools, but none from its own.
I can see this as a signal of either two things -

That the department may not want to be seen favouring its own candidates.
That the department may not have as much faith in its own graduates as that from other schools.

I understand that this may differ from field to field.
But in general, what is the majority view-point on a department that has no representation of its own graduates on its faculty?

Many departments (like mine) explicitly forbid hiring its own PhDs, at least until they get tenure elsewhere or their advisors leave the department.  I think this rule is very healthy.

Not quite the same thing but related: One of the departments at my school will not accept its own Bachelors into its post grad program.  It is not a matter of favoritism, or lack of confidence. It is a tool to ensure the diversity of the students in the program, as well as ensure the individual student has experienced a wider range of views.

I don't know many universities who hire their own graduates in economics except MIT. Harvard almost never hires their own PhDs, neither does Penn.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8618/is-it-peculiar-for-a-department-not-to-have-any-of-its-own-phd-graduates-as-prof

It's common in computer science for a university to have few if any of its own graduates as faculty, and should not be taken as a bad sign by itself. This low representation is for two main reasons:

The best five or ten universities in the United States produce a disproportionately large number of strong academic candidates. In practice universities that have research departments at all (let alone the exceptionally strong ones) tend to be filled with professors with Ph.D.s from the elite few.
Going somewhere else leads to cross-fertilization of academic thought. Presumably after 5+ years of graduate school one has spent a lot of time learning from the expertise available in their department. Going somewhere else allows a professor to transfer her knowledge to a different group of researchers, and to get fresh insight from them in return.

Partly, it depends on the size of the department.  In a small or even medium-sized department, it means nothing.  I wouldn't read anything into it until the department reaches a size where it has five or more graduates of a single school on the faculty (if they have no more than a few from any given place, then random fluctuations could easily push the number to zero).  If they have hired five or ten from another school but none of their own, then it's clear they have a preference for that school.  It's sensible to set up some barriers to hiring your own graduates, so a modest preference for other schools is actually a good sign.  If it gets extreme, it's may be because they think the other school's students are genuinely stronger.
However, I wouldn't worry about this too much.  Even if you run across an unambiguous case, it's hard to know what to make of it.  Sometimes a department has an incredibly strong research group in a certain area but hires none of their own graduates because they simply don't need any more professors in this area.  In that case the lack of hiring is no reflection on the graduates from this group.

No, will be my short answer.
This is a matter of "culture". In my Alma Mater in the US, the department did not hire its graduates as faculty. It was perfectly normal. Where I now work, in Europe, the opposite was the norm; it was unusual to recruit faculty from elsewhere. This has, however, changed and I think we have a healthy mix now. To a large extent this has to do with mobility, in the one case mobility is the norm, in the other it is not. You stay where you were born to some extent.
So the No means that in some fields and countries it is perfectly natural not to recruit from your "own ranks".
A follow up question to this might be what the benefits of internal vs. external recruitment might be. I am sure this differs substantially.

It almost never happens in Finance and Economics, well, except at Harvard, MIT and U of Chicago. This is mostly because there are more people graduating than there are tenure track  jobs and people usually wind up  upto 50-75 ranks below where they graduate. The top 10 schools graduate enough students to fill the positions in the top 50 schools and so on. Sometimes you hear of some stellar people who move up because they have done great work and are very visible but the general traffic is downwards.

In economics, the lower half of the distribution of Harvard graduates go teaching in liberal art colleges, and publish nothing. From that perspective, a top Ph.D. graduate of say Northwestern or Penn State is better than a mediocre Harvard graduate.

@StasK Yeah, you're right. There is still a huge supply of tenure track candidates from top schools but not as large as I'd indicated since, as you correctly pointed out, a lot from the bottom half go into teaching.


text:
Repository for funding opportunities
I'm aware of many mailing-list and RSS feeds advertising about calls for papers/participation, available positions, events, etc, but I find it much harder to know about funding opportunities, such as calls for proposal, grant applications, etc. I'm based in the UK, and there are many funding agencies, including of course EPSRC and the EU, but also many smaller ones, and I'm pretty sure I'm missing interesting opportunities.
So my question: are there some website/systems where I can register my interest, and get to know about existing or soon to come opportunities?
In case it matters, I'm in Computer Science.

hi charles, did you find any useful resources? I would like to know, I am in the same situation. Thansk

Hi @flow: nope, sorry, I didn't find any useful resources, otherwise I would have put them here :)

The biggest problem with such repositories is that someone has to maintain them. All the small funding agencies/foundations are usually obscure and will be hard to find on such a webpage.
Anyways, are you familiar with Research Professional? I use it from time to time, set up alerts for funding possibilities in my fields, so I get mails when someone new comes up. Might be worth a try...

hi posdef, did your institution pay for acccessing this resource?

@flow to be honest I am not sure, it could be the case.

@Opentheway Research Professional is superb! But it's a paid resource.

These come from my related question (which asks for free repositories, so not sure how much a duplicate it is, but I make the point in case someone wants to flag it as one):

https://www.researchprofessional.com/
https://www.grantforward.com/index
https://www.grantselect.com/

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


text:
PhD Research under guide/advisor of a different department
I am a physics undergrad, who is also interested in pure mathematics. I am not very sure what I want to pursue for my PhD. Though I have specific interests in each of the two, and also inter-linked interests, in general I am very confused. My question is it legally and practically allowed for you to chose a guide from another department different than that which you are affiliated to? If not, can someone from another department become a co-guide? In particular, I am looking for laws and practices in the US and Europe (may differ from country to country).

If not, can someone from another department become a co-guide? Yes.

Yes.
At least in the US, it is quite common for PhD students enrolled in department X to be advised by faculty in department Y, either alone or with a co-advisor in department X.  Off the top of my head, I can think of PhD students in my (computer science) department who are advised or co-advised by faculty in electrical engineering, mathematics, and industrial engineering.  Similarly, faculty in my department who advise PhD students in mathematics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and biology.
That said, if you enroll in the PhD program in department X, you will have to satisfy the degree requirements (courses, comprehensive/qualifying exams, etc.) for department X, even if your advisor and your eventual research interests are in department Y.

Thanks for the answer. Is it known that students enrolled in department X, are advised solely by one guide in department Y? or only co-guides from other departments are common?

@ramanujan_dirac: Generally if you are enrolled in department X, you must have an advisor from department X.  However, if everyone agrees, it can happen that most of the work is done with a co-advisor from department Y, and the advisor from X takes a minor role and signs off at the end.

Yes also in Europe. Advisors can even be from different universities.

Is it known that students enrolled in department X, are advised solely by one guide in department Y? — Yes, this is fairly common.  The easiest route at my university is for the advisor in dept Y to have a courtesy appointment in dept X, but even that is not necessary.  But we also have an annual review of all PhD students in our own department (both enrolled and advised) to make sure that everyone is making progress even if they spend all their time in another department.

I have seen co-advisors a number of times.  At least three of my computer science colleagues were co-advised by biologists who were working on projects that needed complex and novel data manipulation and/or novel algorithm design (see, for instance, LUMPY: A probabilistic framework for structural variant discovery).  There aren't any specific laws regarding this (at least in the U.S.), but specific university departments may have guidelines or rules regarding the practice--you would have to check with the schools you are applying to for individual policies.
If your interests bridge two departments, you should probably figure out which department you'd most likely fit into, and contact professors in that field to ask for their opinion on being co-advised.  It may turn out that you need higher level mathematics to inform your physics research but that you won't be creating new math (for example), in which case you probably wouldn't need separate advisors.


text:
Are employments in universities affiliated (or named) with a specific religion restricted to people with the same religion?
I just saw an ad in mathjobs.org about an opening in a Catholic university, see here. I am not christian. So I was wondering to be eligible for employment in a university or college affiliated with a specific religion, should the applicant  have the same religion, or other people from other religions (or even non-religious people) are eligible to apply as well?

I suspect you would be able to apply.
Though I am only familiar with the Canadian experience - here it is illegal for an employer to inquire into an applicant's religion.

It would be worth enquiring. How can you know for sure otherwise?

In the case you link, there is no mention of faith or religious views in the preferred qualifications or in the required submission materials. You should apply. What is the worst that happens? You won't get an interview, and there are dozens of other reasons that might not happen.

In my experience, the answer is usually no but occasionally yes.
Note: This answer is specific to the United States.
Most employers in the US are forbidden by law from discriminating on the basis of religion; they have to give equal consideration to candidates of any religion or no religion, and generally they will avoid asking about religion at all.  This includes non-denominational academic employers.
However, religiously affiliated employers (such as churches, religious charities etc), are exempt from this rule, and may use religion as a criterion for employment if they so choose.  This includes religiously affiliated academic institutions.  Each such institution will have its own policy on whether they consider religion and what the criteria are.  These policies will usually be mentioned in job postings.
In my experience, most intentionally choose to not consider religion as a factor, usually giving the justification of creating an inclusive community.  These may be institutions that were founded by a church and may still receive funding from them, but operate mainly as a secular institution, accepting students and faculty without regard to religion.  Job postings will often indicate this with phrases like "equal opportunity employer".  They may have a "mission statement" with religious wording, and a tradition of religious activities on campus (such as regular church services), but nobody is obligated to participate.
There are others which choose to be more overtly religious.  They may accept students and faculty only if their religious beliefs align with those of the institution.  These are more likely to have formal religious activities on campus, and sometimes strict moral conduct codes.  Their job postings often ask explicitly about the applicant's spiritual beliefs.
The institution's name is not always a good indicator of where they fall in this spectrum.
As one example, Nebraska Wesleyan University describes itself as:

an academic community dedicated to intellectual and personal growth within the context of a liberal arts education and in an environment of Christian concern.

However, they also say:

Nebraska Wesleyan University provides equal educational opportunities to all qualified persons in all areas of university operation, including education and decisions regarding faculty appointment, promotion or tenure, without regard to race, religion, age, sex, creed, color, disability, marital status, national or ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

At the other extreme, Dordt College included this wording in a recent job posting:

The Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science department at Dordt College has a history of preparing students for graduate school, industry and K-12 education. This preparation is infused with an unashamedly Reformed Christian worldview, in order to prepare students to be global citizens in God’s service.  [...]
We look forward to receiving applications from candidates who wish to join us in [...] teaching mathematics from a Christian perspective in the context of educating the whole person.
Qualified persons committed to a Reformed, Biblical perspective and educational philosophy are encouraged to send a letter of interest and curriculum vitae/resume [...]

Generally, institutions that will only consider applicants of a certain religion will make this clear at the outset.  However, even if not, you will have to decide if the religious environment (or lack thereof) on a particular institution's campus will be comfortable for you.  This is an appropriate  topic to ask about during an interview.

Actually, I do not consider it as a discrimination as long as it is based on the foundation of those institutes and is a written rule.

Note also that the Dordt College example does not require a specific denomination of Christianity, but does suggest a certain theological perspective that they would prefer. The majority of postings by Christian institutions (Catholic or otherwise) that I considered applying for wanted me to submit a statement of faith, but did not expect or require a specific religious affiliation.

I don't think this applies generally outside the US, for example to the Catholic University of Leuven.

This is a good thing to note. One other thing that may be worth noting specifically in the context of the OP asking about a Catholic university is that in practice, paying attention to applicants religious affiliation is much more common among Protestant schools than Catholic schools (going off for example adds on Mathjobs or Highered).

This will depend on the institution. This one in particular states that they do not discriminate on the basis of religion.
From http://www.seattleu.edu/policies/nondiscrimination/
Seattle University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, political ideology or status as a Vietnam-era or special disabled veteran in the administration of any of its education policies, admission policies, scholarship and loan programs, athletics, and other school-administered policies and programs, or in its employment related policies and practices.
There are some exceptions for religious organizations but it may depend on the state laws and/or the particular job.

You may want to look up what the catholic church says about its universities in order to form an opinion whether you agree with their views before applying: Apostolic Constitution of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II on Catholic Universities
With a work contract with catholic church you agree with their ethical standards. Depending on close your personal ethics is to theirs, this may be anywhere from advantageous (it may be easier to deny conducting certain research because of ethical objections) to a huge source of conflicts (the typical topics, see below).
AFAIK, the requirements they put on applicants will depend on the faculty and on the job, in particular for catholic theology restrictions may apply that do not apply for other faculties (IMHO quite naturally).
In Germany, churches (i.e. institutions that have an official status of being religious community) are allowed to ask much more duty of loyality from their employees than normal employers. In practice most conflicts about that arise from catholic etics, e.g. employees of the catholic church may loose their job if they try to remarry after a separation (because they cannot be considered leading an exemplary life according to catholic ethics). Also, they may be homosexual, but you may not practice homosexuality (catholic church).
And you may not leave the respective church (if you are member to to begin with).
This tends to me more pronounced for employees in the "core church businees" (theological staff, parishes), that educate (kindergardeners, school teachers) or have a publicly visible position.
Another practical consequence is that the employees of churches are often paid lower wages compared to "normal" employers as working there is also considered service (in the christian religious sense).

The same applies in Australia - schools/universities often state that employees do not publicly mock or degrade the religion on campus, even if they don't agree with some aspects of it.
This may be mentioned in the employment ad itself, but occasionally a place will be granted a 'lift' from the discrimation act, to employ someone of a specific religion.

Not publicly mocking or degrading your employer is not a particular right of churches, it is a "normal" duty of loyality here in Germany - you may not do that with whatever employer you have.

Take Brigham Young University(BYU) for example,
As an educational institution affiliated with the LDS Church, BYU prefers to hire qualified members of the Church in good standing, as authorized under Title 41 CFR § 60-1.5 (a)(6). Interviewing or hiring a non-LDS applicant requires Vice President approval.
But if you are hired, you are expected as an employee to observe high standards in modesty, taste, judgment, and appropriateness of dress and grooming. Observance of such is a specific condition of employment.
An employee being hired for an assignment or an actual fulltime job, you will review a Standard of Conduct Commitment form, accepting as a condition of employment the observance of:
Church Educational System Honor Code on and off campus, 24 hours a day.
Specific Employee Dress and Grooming Standards on and off campus, 24 hours a day.
Abiding by the rules and standards of the Church.
The candidate will sign this Standard of Conduct Commitment form, accepting as a condition of employment the observance of the Church Educational System Honor Code and Dress and Grooming Standards at all times, on and off campus.

If this is a direct quote (as seems likely) it would be good to provide a link to the source and to put ">" before the quoted text so it is formatted clearly as a quote.

Yes.  You can get a job there even if you're of different faith or are not religious.  See page 14 of http://history.siam.org/pdfs2/Gonnet_final.pdf.

Your link describes a particular non-religious person getting a job at a particular Catholic university in Brazil in the late 1970s.  I don't think you can generalize from there to guess whether the asker is eligible for a position at a completely different Catholic university in another country, 35 years later.

@NateEldredge Agree.  I don't want to generalize either. Just want to point out that in practice (as opposed to the theory suggested by @cbeleites) that such a case is possible.  Sorry, I couldn't find a more recent example at that moment.


text:
How is a new academic journal born?
We have witnessed (heard or read) about the birth of new academic journals many times. I have a vague idea how that happens:

A scientist or a group of scientists recognize the need for an academic journal in a specific field or a new scientific society considers to publish a journal,
they choose a group of experts as founders and/or chief editors,
they determine a scope and some basic rules for the journal,
they decide about the number of issues in each year and similar things,
they find a publisher or decide to publish the journal entirely on web, they establish a web site for the journal,
and then they announce the new journal in the related scientific community.

Did I miss any stage? But I suspect there are lots of discussions, negotiations, arrangements and cooperations behind the curtain, which public (the rest of the related scientific community) doesn't know. So my questions are:

What is a typical procedure for establishing a respectful academic journal?
Do financial considerations play a key role?
Should the founders be top experts (to some degree) in the field?
Is it important the new journal be affiliated to a scientific society or be published by a recognized publisher?
Why are some new journals published only on-line?
What are the influential factors for the success of a new journal?
How do the founders choose the editors?
What else should one consider for initiating a new academic journal?

Please share your partial answers too if you don't have all the answers.
Disclaimer: I am just curious and I don't intend to initiate any new journals in the near future.;)

You may want to break this question down into a bunch of smaller questions.

@DanielE.Shub: I actually thought about it. But I think asking about the whole process of initiating a new journal could be a common question and hopefully the answers would be useful for others too.  If we break this question, then following the answers would be much more difficult for others.

I also think this question is too broad in its current form.

Here is a first attempt at providing some short suggestions:

You need to identify the scope of the journal and it is best if it does not directly compete with others. Competition is more detrimental if the scope is narrow, it is unavoidable if the scope is wide. You need to make sure it has an international audience (a local journal would probably not end up prestiguous). Find a set of editors that is international in composition, preferably with well known active researchers at the helm. And then you need to look for publishers. I would say that Open Access is what you should go for. Many government funding agencies in Europe now request researchers to publish in Open Access.
Financial in what sense? If you manage to get a commercial publisher to publish your journal they will most certainly set up a budget of some sort. This question is the most difficult to answer. You need to get some finances in to support review systems, type-settings (and by the way, LaTeX would be your way to produce consistent high quality journal papers most easily; you also need someone to design the journal for you). In Open Access journals people usually pay to submit papers, in commercial cases, published papers are charged per page. Many review systems take a fee for each paper submitted. So there will inevitably be some finances involved but they will be determined by the systems you chose.
Yes, without having the journal stamped as serious by established scientists, it will not be easy.
Scientific Society would help but they will probbaly then take over the journal. A publisher/distributor (commercial, society, other body accepted by the community etc.) is a must. You need systems for submitting, managing and publishing manuscripts as well. Getting branded through a publisher is a good way to become recognized.
I would argue that it is only a matter of time before all journals are on-line only. Printing is no longer necessary and really only a waste of time and funding (not to mention resources). Any new journal will almost certainly be on-line only.
A strong line-up of editors and then try to get established scientists to commit to publish in the journal to set a good base-line. You need to work up citations to make the citation index, which takes effort and some time. The citation Index, whether you like it or not, is a hurdle that will make or potentially break any effort. In the long-term people will not published in journals that are not ISI listed.
Chosing the editors should probably be done as publically as possible. I can imagine getting names of persons that are willing to run together and then put them up for a public vote within th ecommunity. This way everyone (who will hopefully send their papers to the j) can feel they are part of the process.
Just make sure it is a communal effort and not a private enterprise. Get as many as possible involved by starting discussions early on in public. Use conferences and listservers (if the community has one) as vehicles for this. Facebook, twitter etc. might also be possible to involve.

EDIT: The journal The Cryosphere is a good and successful  example of a new journal (Open Access). It became ISI listed after a very short time because it received the support of the community in terms of good papers to establish it. It is now a key publication in the field. (and I am not paid to say this!)

A publisher is a must. — This is simply false.  Lots of high-quality, high-impact journals are self-published; see, for example, Journal of Machine Learning Research, VLDB Journal, or Electronic Journal of Combinatorics.

I think VLDB Journal is published by Springer, but your point is good.

JMLR is published by Microtome Publishing.


text:
Factors contributing to Research apart from publishing Technical Papers
I want to pursue M.S. from USA.
I know that it is required to have a background of publishing technical papers for getting admit in a good University.
But I wanted to know whether is there anything else apart from publishing a paper that constitutes as "Research" by the Admission authorities?
Thank You.

Peer-reviewed published papers are acknowledged research results. If you can find a way to present your research results, I think it would be accepted by admission authorites.

Check out the answers to this question: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5638/what-sort-of-research-experience-does-a-college-or-university-expect-a-professor

Research potential can be demonstrated in other ways besides publishing. Generally, undergraduate research experiences should be addressed in your application materials, especially your letters of recommendation. They may even appear on your transcript.

See my answer to a related question.

@JeffE Thanks a lot!
I have done some stuff related to what you have mentioned in that answer.
I hope that pleases the admission authorities.

A senior thesis (or, if you're engineering, your senior project, if you did one) would probably be a good thing to showcase, as it demonstrates both your ability to perform work in a group as well as your ability to write.
Internships are great. They show that you can work and it also can serve as a reference.

If you've done anything else particularly notable (e.g., won a nationally recognized science fair), you can mention it, but the number of people who've done stuff like this is pretty miniscule.

From your question, it is not clear that what MS do you referring to and seeking advice for. If you plan for MS by course, the admission committee do not usually evaluate you based on publications, because they don't need you to do research and therefore, it is not needed. They are looking for the university from which you did your UG, your marks, and your final project TITLE and your work.
If you are after MS by research, the story is slightly different, but still publication is not the only requirement. I guess, it is okay to have UGs without publications since UGs are busy with large number of subjects to take (depends on the universities they study) and CS is one of the majors that needs mini project for majority of subjects. Hence, you may not have enough time to be exposed to the research and publication, especially if your university does not approve research project as final project.
For MS by research, the main piece of evidence to show you know research is to prepare a very impressive research proposal. If you can impress them, you have the position. Sometimes looking at recommendation letter also works. If you have a good rec letter with some research-based recommendations and the admission committee know the person issued the recommendation letter, it may change their idea and cover some of your weaknesses.
Also, doing vulonteer job is also important to demonstrate your ability to work in a new domain with different people in a team or as an individual.

Hi @Espanta, Thank You for your advice, I have some queries though. Regarding "because they don't need you to do research and therefore, it is not needed", AFAIK MS is all about research right? At least that's what my seniors told me. That is why they select students who already have experience in research.
Regarding "For MS by research, the main piece of evidence to show you know research is to prepare a very impressive research proposal.", you mean I should mention this in my SOP right?

Hi, you welcome, I hope it is useful. I don't know what AFAIK is, but for funded research positions, applicant needs to prepare a research proposal to help the university to find an appropriate supervisor. However, in funded positions no need to submit proposal, instead u shd relate previous research exp with the position in SoP. Be careful, SoP is very important. All the best

it is "As Far AS I Know"!

my god!!! AFAIK is an abbreviation. I thought it is a certain grant scheme or ... It is funny and embarrassing for me not to know AFAIK!!!. Well, MS varies in different faculties. For instance, in computer science, it can be undertaken in course mode, research mode, or mixed (course and research). But again that depends on the university you want to study. Different uni and even countries provide different MS. You check with university first. If that is pure research, you need to have proposals, in other two cases you do not need publication and no proposals. Good luck


text:
Are there downsides to speculative applications for academic jobs?
Speculative applications, i.e. application without a job announcement being published, are common (well, at least normal) in non-academic jobs. But I am not sure the situation is the same in academia. Somebody has suggested me to send speculative applications to different departments for teaching or research jobs. I was thus considering the pros and cons of this type of applications.
The pros are almost evident (more exposure). However, I worry about potential downsides. In particular, how would potential employers look at such an application? Could it make me look bad? Is there any other downside I haven't thought of?

This reads too much like an invitation to discussion, I'm afraid: particularly, but not only, the final sentence.

I am gathering information about the subject.

Would you please explain precisely what you mean by a "speculative application"?

By a speculative application I mean an application before a job announcement. In this kind of application, the applicant voluntary contacts the prospective employers and describes his qualifications and what he/she can contribute to the organizations.

@EnergyNumbers I've edited the question to try to make it less open. I think it has value, and we can edit it into a suitable shape for the site's Q&A format.

Almost all my (academic and non-academic) jobs so far either found me (ideal), or I carefully found them and got in via a "speculative" application. For me it's a perfectly viable way to get the job I want and not make too many compromises by accepting tangentially relevant positions as advertised at the time I need a new job. Hence +1 for JeffE's answer and -1 for EnergyNumbers'.

Here is my standard advice to PhD students applying for academic jobs:

First, look for departments that are advertising for faculty in your subfield.  Apply there.
Second, look for departments that are advertising for faculty, but not in your subfield.  Apply there anyway.  There is no way to tell from the advertisement whether the listed fields are requirements, preferences, or mere examples, or if they just recycled last year's ad without reading it first.  (Yes, I have seen all these alternatives.)
Third, look for interesting departments that are not advertising for faculty.  Apply there anyway.  There is no way to tell from the lack of advertisement whether they are really not hiring, or they just aren't advertising widely, or they just haven't posted their ad yet, or they thought they posted the ad but didn't.  (Yes, I have seen all these alternatives.)

Before anyone objects: Obviously, I'm not talking about your department.  Everyone  knows that your department's advertisements are precise, timely, and highly visible.  I mean other departments.
Of course, if you're thinking of applying to any department, whether they're advertising in you subfield or not, it's a good idea to contact someone you know in that department to find out what they're really looking for.  If your contact says "No, really, we aren't hiring X," you can save yourself the trouble.  But if you (or your advisor) don't know anyone well enough to ask?  Fire away.

"Apply there anyway."  In the era of web-based job applications, how do you do that?

@AnonymousPhysicist Write the department chair/head and ask.

This answer is based on mathematics in the U.S. (I have no idea about other scenarios).
Before electronic job applications, submitting speculative applications was common.  It never had a high success rate, and it would be foolish to waste time carefully customizing an application for a job that probably doesn't exist, but occasionally a job opens up unexpectedly.  For example, a temporary replacement for someone going on leave.  Last-minute openings generally aren't great jobs, but the job market is tough and it can be worth positioning yourself for whatever is available.  Receiving speculative applications was only a small burden for the department, since there's no need even to read them unless they are needed.
However, now that most departments have moved to electronic applications, often centralized through mathjobs.org, speculative applications seem to be much less common.  One reason is that electronic applications often require the applicant to specify which positions they would like to be considered for.  If there's no appropriate opening, then it may not be possible to apply at all.  (Another option is to apply for an inappropriate position and indicate a willingness to be considered for any other openings that arise, but this is rude and counterproductive since it wastes the time of the search committee for the position that actually exists.)  Most departments still accept paper applications, but they are much more painful for everyone involved, so I would not recommend sending out speculative paper applications.  Another reason for the decline in speculative applications is that mathjobs.org makes it much easier to advertise a position on short notice in a location every job seeker is aware of, so speculative applications are simply less helpful than they were decades ago.

"Most departments still accept paper applications" Maybe in 2013, but not now.

As an employer, I'll give a feedback somewhat opposite to EnergyNumbers: if I receive what you call a speculative application[1], I will not consider it spam as long as it is relevant, i.e. if I would really consider the candidate if I had an open position. I have a ready-made reply for such cases (I must receive one or two a month), and I add these people to the email list to which I send announcements of job openings.
The best inquiry, though, is indirect: if you know someone in that department, ask them rather than the other professors.

[1] which I call a “job inquiry” or “spontaneous application” (the later is the common term in French, but probably not used in English)

One thing you could do that's similar to a speculative application, but better in some ways, is to email people in your field to express your interest in their department and ask them to keep you in mind if there are any openings.  This can be helpful if there's a late opening, a visiting position which is not widely advertised, or even just to keep people aware that you're interested in case they have an opening the next year.  Furthermore, they may be aware of jobs at other schools that opened late or were otherwise poorly advertised.  My impression is that this approach makes sense if you are willing to consider a temporary job and if it is relatively late in the hiring cycle.  It also can be more effective for your advisor to make these inquiries on your behalf.

I have a specific email folder for speculative applications, whether it's for jobs of any grade, PhDs, or Masters courses. It's called Spam, and all the speculative job applications go in there.
If I'm feeling exceptionally generous, I reply with a link to the University vacancies page.
And that's because one of the defining elements of academia is rigour.  That means, among other things, being able and willing to follow experiment protocols.  If the first thing I learn about a potential colleague is that they can't be bothered to follow our recruitment protocols, even though they're well-documented and linked to from our recruitment pages, they've pretty much already disqualified themselves from being an interesting candidate, unless they're really exceptional. (And as we know from Dunning & Kruger, the ones who think they're really exceptional, typically aren't; and the ones who are, typically think they're not.). Those guidelines are derived from legal advice in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Other employers in the same jurisdiction might interpret the law differently; other jurisdictions will have laws with different implications.
So, as someone sending out speculative applications, at best you spend a lot of time (that could have been better spent researching, publishing, networking at conferences) customising your CV so that it's targeted uniquely at each recipient, taking account of their unique position, and eventually you find a place that has slacker rules, or you find someone willing to break them. At worst, you send the same application to dozens or hundreds of recipients, showing each of them laziness and contempt.
If someone wanted to get on my radar in a positive way, they wouldn't send a speculative application. They'd send me some research they'd done that was likely to be of particular interest to me. They might ask for feedback on an article before submission, or flag it up to me after publication, in a short, concise, email with a link to the article. They might arrange to bump into me at a conference or seminar. They might invite me to work with them on a paper they have in development, that overlapped with some work I'm doing or have done.

It seems you are talking about speculative applications for research jobs as a post doctoral researcher. What about teaching jobs or jobs as a senior researcher? Do academics generally consider a speculative application as a sign of laziness and contempt?

@VahidShirbisheh it does not matter whether academics consider speculativve applications as a sign of laziness and contempt.  The only thing that matters is whether they read them or not.  I gather from EnergyNumbers answer that he does not read them at all.  So if someone did send a speculative application and also send some research that was likely to be of particular interest, EnergyNumbers would not hold the speculative application against the applicant.

“[if someone wanted a job from me] they might offer co-authorship on a paper” — be careful how that sounds


text:
Which topics should be covered in a teaching statement?
In mathematics, submitting a teaching statement (also called teaching philosophy or similar names) is part of the application package for any teaching jobs (and most research jobs). I suspect it is a part of the application for academic jobs in other disciplines too. I have written a teaching statement and I rewrite and modify it every now and then. Since I wrote it myself I think it is perfect and I cannot detect its possible flaws and mistakes. Therefore, I am looking for tips and advice for improving my teaching statement. I particularly appreciate any advices from people who are involved in hiring committees. My questions are:
Which topics would members of search committees like to see in a teaching statement? or alternatively, which mistakes in a teaching statement can ruin an applicants' chances for getting an interview?
In order to make this Q&A useful for others, I didn't restrict it to mathematicians. However, I'll appreciate if someone has a specific advice for writing teaching statements for mathematics jobs.

For those (like myself) unfamiliar with the concept of a teaching statement, see the linked articles in this google search.

I'll be perfectly honest. In the recruiting that I've been involved with in CS, we don't look very carefully at the teaching statement. They tend to be generic and convey less info than the interview talk. I suspect things are quite different in math.

First things first:

Since I wrote it myself I think it is perfect and I cannot detect its possible flaws and mistakes.

It is imperative that you have someone else read over your statement with a critical eye and with the experience to provide quality feedback.  You'd be surprised at what you can miss in your own writing, and how the tone may come across different to others.

Which topics would members of search committees like to see in a teaching statement?

This will be dependent on the type of department you are applying to -- at many institutions, research ability trumps teaching, and your statement might not count for much (see below for a caveat about being too gung-ho).  Assuming the reason you are asked for a teaching statement is because the department that is hiring does value teaching, I suggest the following:

Demonstrate your understanding that math is difficult for some students, particularly as it gets more abstract.  If you can, provide a brief example of a topic that was hard to teach and how you ended up teaching it.
Provide examples of how you changed your teaching based on student feedback or your own assessment.  Showing that as a professor, you'll continually try to improve your teaching goes a long way.
Talk about curriculum development -- if you have ever designed a course, make sure you mention it.  Describe what you enjoyed about the course development process, and how you addressed the challenges.
Try to convey your passion for teaching -- some of the best teachers are the most passionate, and if you can get that across (only if it is true, of course!), all the better.

Which mistakes in a teaching statement can ruin an applicants' chances for getting an interview?

As with any writing, poor grammar demonstrates a lack of attention to detail (or ability), and that will torpedo your application.  Again, have others read it over and provide feedback.
If you are applying to a school where teaching takes a back seat to research, don't make it sound like you live for teaching; you don't want to say that you've stayed up all night crafting the perfect lesson when you should have been doing research.
Don't be boring!  This could be a difficult one depending on your writing style. I've seen teaching statements that made it sound like the teacher would be the most boring professor in the world.  Again, examples from your own teaching can help make the writing more interesting.

Finally, your teaching statement can be more personal than your research statement, so it is okay to let that come out a bit more.  Demonstrating why you'll be a good teacher is the most important part, and this should be apparent in the essay.
Edit: I should add -- as with any other letter or statement, you should feel free to craft different letters for different jobs.  If you're applying to a college where professors teach three or four classes per semester, you can expect they will pay more attention to your teaching statement, and you should taylor it appropriately.

+1 For It is imperative that you have someone else read over your statement.


text:
Graduate school and students with learning disabilities
I'm looking to apply to a Ph.D program in mathematics. I was going to apply last year, but ended up getting cold feet because I wasn't sure how having a learning disability would affect (1) being admitted (application process), and (2) if I were to had been so fortunate, whether faculty would treat me any differently (be less willing to take me on as one of their students, for example). I especially worry about (2) because I have experienced a few awkward situations with professors as an undergrad (at the university I attended, it was quite uncommon to find a student with a learning disability studying maths).
For the sake of simplifying the issue, let's assume that my understanding of mathematics is roughly equivalent to those who I would be "competing" against in the application process.

Should I explain my situation in my application and can it affect my chances of getting in? (I do not mean to ask if it is legal or not).
How are graduate students with disabilities seen from a professor's point of view?
What would happen if I were to need a year or two more than other students needed to finish their doctorate? Would they consider this matter in the admission process? What about funding?

I apologize if I don't provide a clearer picture, but I'm not very comfortable providing too much information. I would really appreciate hearing from those in academia (though others are obviously more than welcome to provide responses) who have either personally been through a similar situation or dealt with a student with a learning disability. Lastly, please don't worry about "softening" any responses, I'd like responses to be as honest as possible.

Update:
I am looking into programs both in Europe and in the United States (there are programs in both countries I would very much like to attend). I've noticed some programs in the United States state on their website they would like students to finish in 4 years (perhaps this is due to economic constraints in recent years).

This may well depend upon the nature of the learning disability. If you could provide a little more details about that, then perhaps a concrete answer can be given.

It could be worth contacting the disability services people at the universities you're interested in applying to to ask for their advice.

WARNING: Stay at your home institution, even if it means that you
might not get your ideal pick of subject area. Once you leave
your home undergrad institution, you won't be able to get back
your accomodations so easily. I was accepted and into a Math PhD
program this year with full funding. I moved across the country
to work with a certain professor at this new school.
The math department is awesome, but the disability services is
horrible. I was told that I am the only graduate student that has
ever asked for accomodations...ever! The director of the center
somehow thinks that I am being insincere despite the multiple
levels of documentation that I have sent. The higher your level
of education is, the more likely it is that you are supposed to
be a failure if you are an LD student. Since you'll be going into
math, they simply won't believe that you have any problems.
Do not disclose that you require accomodations to anyone until
after you have been accepted with funding. Get these issues
settled before you start classes. It might even be a good idea to
defer your studies until you get these issues resolved with the
disability services.
If you have poor grades due to a learning disability and want to
get into a grad school, then you must compensate with published
research with your professors. When it comes to graduate
acceptance, they are only looking for research potential. They
will overlook your GRE scores or grades if they are above the
50th percentile and you have a strong research background. The
GRE isn't predictive of anything for math students because it is
a timed exam full of highschool math problems that you can do in
your sleep. With a learning disability, you will get a low score
because you will only finish fewer than half of the problems, but
since you are a math major, you will get all of them
right. Again, they are highschool math problems.
The only grades that really count are are your proof-heavy math
courses. You should try to get As in most of these. Especially
Abstract Algebra and Analysis. The grad school will ignore any
past failures in the pre-calc through calculus sequence of
courses if you have done well in the proof heavy
courses (abstract algebra, analysis, topology, number theory,
combinatorics, graph theory).
Go to all of the mathematics conferences and colloquiums. Hang
out with the professors. Get to know a few of them very
well. Learn about their research. They will give you toy problems
to take home for fun. If you do enough of these, then they will
eventually give you some real problems to work on. Then all of a
sudden, you will be presenting at conferences and publishing
papers with them. They will write you awesome letters for grad
school.
Once in grad school, you will have to deal with another hurdle --
the qualifier exam (quals). These are typically timed exams. You
will have to make a really good impression on all of the
department's professors for several years if you want them to
argue for giving you more time on the quals. Giving someone
without a learning disability more time on the quals will not
change the outcome of the exam, so they will allow more time in
the case of an LD student.
In grad school, you will work with your professors very
closely. Work on their problems for a while. Eventually you will
run into something that they haven't thought of. This will be
your PhD thesis. Every question that you can answer in math
generates new questions.
Your mathematics ability is judged by creativity, not on
speed.

Should I explain my situation in my application and can it affect my chances of getting in? (I do not mean to ask if it is legal or not).

Don't disclose until you get in. Research the schools and see what kinds of support are available for students with learning disabilities. From my experience, it is more important to have the support of an office backing you, than to have the acceptance of professors. My Chair and dissertation committee were all supportive and worked with me to finish in the timeframe that I needed.

How are graduate students with disabilities seen from a professor's point of view?

Stigma is real. Most professors that I have dealt with as a PhD student did not understand or help me (not because they didn't want to, they just didn't understand), but I got the support I needed from the disability resource center at my university and I received the necessary accommodations. Professors had to adhere to the law, so they worked with the disability office on campus to make sure that I had what I needed. You are your biggest advocate though, and it is your responsibility to follow through on everything. When you do that and you have an office backing you, you will be able to succeed.

What would happen if I were to need a year or two more than other students needed to finish their doctorate? Would they consider this matter in the admission process? What about funding?

I got 2 extensions and took a total of 10 years to complete my PhD. The average time to complete a PhD at my university is 7.5 years, so 2.5 years longer was no big deal. As long as I was making progress towards completion and submitting my APR (Annual Progress Report), I was granted the time. Like I said though, I had total support from my committee, the university grad studies office, and the disability resource center, but I had to facilitate this process and that was difficult.

Welcome to Academia.SE! It's great to hear an answer from personal experience.

Edit: For some reason I mis-read the question as "physical" disability, rather than "learning disability."  I've amended the answer appropriately, although I suppose it still has a slant towards physical disability.

Should I explain my situation in my application and can it affect my chances of getting in? (I do not mean to ask if it is legal or not).

This is up to you.  If you approach it as "how I've overcome my disability to do well in Mathematics," then it could positively affect your acceptance.  If you do put it into a statement of purpose, make sure you have someone else read it over and criticize whether or not it sounds like you're forcing the issue (you don't want to do that).

How are graduate students with disabilities seen from a professor's point of view?

As a high school teacher, I had many students with varying disabilities, and I approached each student's situation differently, always with the goals to (1) make the student feel comfortable, (2) to make the other students feel comfortable, and (3) to minimize any effects on the classroom because of the student's disability (e.g., one student had a pace maker and it affected the types of electrical experiments and demonstrations we could do during physics class, so I had to plan around it to minimize the issue).  As a college instructor, I've had students with hearing disabilities, and I wore a microphone during lectures that the student could tune in to with a radio.  I've also had students with eyesight disabilities, and we made sure that front-row seats were available, and that they had access to any slides before class (a good idea for any student, actually!).
For students with learning disabilities, I've always encouraged them to use the resources available through the school.  As long as a student has a documented disability, they get the benefits of that diagnosis (e.g., extra time on tests -- although I almost always give everyone extra time if they need it).
I never felt any ill-will towards disabled students (physical or learning), and we worked around the challenges mutually.  I'm sure you've already handled this individually with many of your previous teachers and professors, so I would continue to do that when you get to grad school.

What would happen if I were to need 5 to 6 years to finish my doctorate?

You'd be the average!
Edit:
In my first response, I didn't really focus on what might be different in grad school (vice undergrad).

You'll have many more one-on-one interactions with your advisor and other professors -- if your disability might somehow affect these interactions, consider that carefully when you decide on your advisor.  For example, if your disability involves poor memory skills and you need to read notes before answering your advisor's questions, don't pick an advisor that gets upset when you don't immediately have answers.
You will most likely have to give presentations in class and at conferences and workshops, which you may have gotten away with not doing in undergraduate school (and certainly if you have to defend your thesis before your committee).  If your disability will prevent you from doing that effectively, you need to think about how to mitigate it.
You'll spend long hours at school, in an office or lab, or the library.  Consider this if your disability will be affected by it.
You'll read a lot.  A LOT.  If you thought you read a lot in undergraduate school, stand by.  Again, if your disability limits the amount of time you can read or the ability for you to read, you will have to figure out how to mitigate it.

About "You'd be the average!": I rather expect the OP is not planning to do a PhD in North America, since I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that 5 or 6 years for a PhD is normal there.

@TaraB - good point; I forgot that many countries have different timelines for PhD studies.  That said, it would surprise me if schools set a hard limit of four years to complete the degree (in the U.S., I've seen hard limits of seven years and ten years).

A hard limit of four years is actually very common in the UK.  The 'standard' completion time is supposed to be three years (I know very few people who have achieved this).  However, in some circumstances one can argue for an extension, and I expect that having a learning disability might be such a circumstance.

@TaraB - Consider me surprised!

UK PhD students don't generally do as much teaching as PhD students in North America.  They also often don't have to take any courses, and almost never any exams.  It's really just about producing the thesis.

I don't know how it is in US, my supervisor in UK does not agree for teaching. He said I can do that on postdoc, but not on PhD. I have very strict cup - 3 years with founding, +1 year not founded for thesis if I need, after I have to pay huge money. PhD must be done in 4 years

@TaraB If UK students don't have to take courses, how do they develop a foundation in much more advanced topics? I would assume that would be necessary to do research, no?

@Mark:  The undergraduate degrees are much more focussed, so they get to the advanced topics earlier than in North America.  Aside from that, they just do lots of reading, or attend some courses without taking the exam.  It does seem to be increasingly common for courses to be required, though (but still without exams).  (This is all only for mathematics, I don't know much about PhDs in other subjects.)

Echoing some of the other good answers: in the U.S., "reasonable accommodations" must be made. A modicum of formal documentation, and interview with our "Accommodations Office" will easily get accommodations such as more time on timed exams, for grad students or undergrads.
Beyond contests and quiz-bowls, "time" is usually not a key issue in the practice of mathematics. For that matter, some people who've done very well in contests find genuine mathematics not to their taste.
So, in the vein that "slow and steady wins the race", indeed, reasonably-talented (and interested!) people who can stay more-or-less-focused for weeks, months, or years will tend to produce good work, while quiz-kids who can only work for an hour or a day will not.
This does leave up in the air the issue of appraisal of mathematical talent (which is not a scalar... it comes in varying forms) in the face of some sort of learning disability. The fundamental issue would be to convince the admissions committee that you have the talent, perhaps despite problems with standard filtering devices such as GRE... Hopefully, you have faculty mentors who can attest to your talent in much subtler ways than grades and such. If not, things become tricky.
I've been on grad admissions committees for decades, and the bottom-line question is really about capacity and interest in finishing the degree. Achieving a good outcome a little more slowly is not desirable, but that aspect is secondary to the quality. Years later, a year or two now won't matter too much.

EDIT: My answer is about research based PhD in UK from real experience, not from a leaflet.
First of all it depends where do you want to study. I can tell you my experience from my UK perspective (I do PhD at the moment in Engineering, I finished undergrad Math with Stat).
The PhD is completely different than Undergrad. You do not have to much contacts with Professors even with your supervisor quite rare. At least it is completely different than an undergrad level. You do your own study. They expect you to write some forms every three months. After about a year you should have written Literature Review (about 20-30 pages), after that start to produce some results.
The aim of PhD is to make an input into knowledge. You need to find something new and nobody will do it for you. Do not expect that you will go to someone and ask how to do that because nobody will know. After your first year you should be the best expert in your small piece of the field and nobody will know better than you.
Remember PhD is about writing. You have to write articles and only this can give you strong diploma.
All your skills counts and there is no perfect candidate. You can have something what other don't have and this can be your strong point. I think nobody really cares about learning difficulties, because you do not have exams, do not have coursework, but your job is to write articles, if you can do that in your time and space, you fine.
You will get funding usually for three years. After that you have a year to write your thesis but you do not have money. After that they push you to finish, so you need to pay the fee by yourself. Nobody will give you more money because of your difficulties. It is your choice. You can do your PhD part time and have founding for six years or you can try to find some sponsorship.
To finish I would like to tell you what one of the professors told me about his recruitment strategy. I asked him what is the most important factor if he have to chose his postdoc.
He told me that he does interview and ask himself if he would like to spent 15 hours fly to a conference with the guy who is interviewed.
There are all different reasons why one person is selected and another not.
Keep applying, keep in mind you will not get your first, probably not second or even third position, smile and don't give up.
Good luck.

"You do not have contact with Porfessors even with your supervisor very rare."  I found this to be exactly opposite in grad school: I met more often with my professors and had weekly one-on-one meetings with my advisor.

I agree with Chris, but I think this may be somewhat subject-dependent.  The OP is intending to study mathematics, and so I think much in this answer will not be so relevant (for example, a literature review is not usually required in mathematics, and meetings with supervisors are usually fairly frequent).

How I said on the beginning. This is from my experience. On my PhD I do Maths and Stats, mainly Bayesian filtering, mathematical modelling etc. The literature review is the obligatory part and it have to be done for transfer from PhD to MPhil. I am surprise you see your supervisor so often, as from very beginning I was told it is not the case. Before I started my PhD I asked around and this is not my case, but very general rule.

@tomasz74: If someone told me that they'd been admitted to a graduate program where students have "no contact with professors", my immediate reply would be "Don't walk.  Run."

@tomasz74: Where I did my PhD it was considered somewhat unusual to see one's supervisor less often than fortnightly.  But a friend who did his PhD in politics saw his supervisor once every three months.

The level of contact with you supervisor is not just dependent on subject. It is dependent on your supervisor. Mine was significantly different to students I was initially co-supervised with. That's why I advice people to consider preferred work-patterns (yours and your supervisor's) when choosing a supervisor, in addition to other factors. There is plenty of room for getting frustrated if your preferences differ too greatly.

Since I can't see it mentioned yet, I feel the need to point out that not making accommodations is illegal in some juristictions at least. Of course that is not the same as prevailing attitudes, but those change best when someone fights. Whether you are willing to be the person that fights is another question. However, what your experience would be will vary between institutions - some will be better at dealing with disabilities than others, so I would suggest getting in contact with current students to find out what things are really like.
Another big factor is exactly what the nature of your difficulties is. If they are fundamental to your ability to do maths then you probably won't get anywhere, as you don't have a right to be excellent at something. If they are more about how you learn mathematics then you might be OK. Doctoral study is much more individual than undergraduate study, so you should be able to adapt working patterns to suit you better. On the other hand, some aspects of certain disabilities are so prevalent within mathematics that you won't get any sympathy from some people.
I think that a key thing to consider is that the nature of accommodation would very likely change. Doing a PhD requires high level performance. You will not get credit for writing poor quality papers because it's hard for you. What you should get is help to build up your coping strategies so that you can produce high quality work despite your difficulties. The research community at large will not make any allowances for you, so you must learn how you can keep up.
Personally I would think that taking an extra 2 years sounds like a lot. Universities and supervisors are likely to get hassled about a student taking that long. There should be systems in place to deal with people who have unexpected problems while studying and so need time out or just longer, but going in expecting to take that much longer doesn't sound like much of a good idea.
I think you should discuss your needs with the disability office as part of your application process. Also, as I said before, talk to current students to find out what the local culture is like in practice. But also be prepared to take responsibility for yourself.