text:
Justifying sub-optimal research quality by lack of supervision
When starting a Ph.D. position, one naturally expects that there should be some kind of supervision of his work. That is, their advisors should be aware of the state-of-the-art and be willing to sit and discuss research directions and provide pointers to the literature. In some cases, advisors may be too "bossy," expecting their students to be "good soldiers" doing what they are told to do without many questions about its research value. However, it's also not uncommon for advisors to be "hands-off," basically  leaving their students on their own and so they come back only when they have something to publish.
Navigating solely through the literature is arguably the worst part of Ph.D Grind. It's all too easy for a student with undeveloped "feel" for problems to spend months trying to shape a proper research plan. That is what happened in my case, where I needed more than a year. Now that I've started with actual experimentation I realized that the workload may be a bit high for a single person. Therefore, I'm expecting that I'll need more than a year before I start publishing results.
Given that I'm working totally independently on my Ph.D. degree, can I state that to future academic employers as a justification for what could be sub-optimal research work? or would that sound like I'm not taking full responsibility?

In some countries (e.g. USA) the first year in PHD is for passing courses. "I realized that the workload may be a bit high for a single person". Yes, it is. That is why getting a PHD is very hard. One+ year for your first paper seems reasonable. Once you do it, and after many rejection / acceptance circles it progressively gets faster.

I would argue that navigating through the literature yourself is one of the joys of a PhD, and also one of the critical techniques to learn to become a truly independent researcher.  It is also a technique that requires you to messily wrestle with the process to fully learn it.

"Given that I'm working totally independently" Does this have some formalized meaning of which I'm unaware?  I first read it as meaning "My advisor gives me so little guidance that it's like not having an advisor at all."  If the latter, that is a terrible way to describe your relationship with your advisor: it makes you both sound bad.

Sounds to me like you are trying to resolve a problem that has not yet occurred. If you have any reason to believe that what you are doing is poor quality, then you are most of the way to understanding how to bring it up to scratch. If you can clearly articulate what your concerns are with the work, it will be so much easier to get help from your formal adviser or or other faculty. Further, you are implying that you expect to get the degree with sub-optimal work. Whilst not all PhD work is of the same standard, having a plan for "sub-optimal" sounds like a good way to not get there at all.

Welcome to real life I guess. The hard part of a PhD is becoming a independent researcher, not becoming a researcher. People expect that being an independent researcher is what you learn in your PhD, if you state that your results are bad due to you independence researching (I know I am repeating myself a lot) you are kind of saying that you failed at your learning! Don't worry, not everyone has a brilliant PhD and most "big guys" in academia didn't.

You should be very, very careful about seeming to criticize your own department or supervisor. It might be unfair that you received sub-optimal results, but if you try to blame somebody else for your results, search committee members are much more likely to just think you are a complainer or a malcontent.
The best advice at this early stage in your career: either find a way to work together better with your advisor, or switch advisors.

"The best advice at this early stage in your career: either find a way to work together better with your advisor, or switch advisors." Ca y est.  +1.

@PeteL.Clark It's not a personal issue between me and my advisor. This simply his style with all Ph.D. students. Moreover, changing advisors is not an option in Germany.

@abk: Yes, you are allowed to change advisors, if necessary by changing programs and/or countries.  If the latter sounds severe, remember that most European PhDs who want to stay in academia need to take jobs outside of their home country.  Going to a different country is a much better option for your future career than soldiering through a PhD program expecting substandard results the whole time.  The academic job market can barely carry people who have gotten fantastic results.  (By the way: I find it hard to believe that no German PhD student has ever changed advisors.)

One more piece of advice: You need to find somebody senior in your faculty whom you can trust. Perhaps that's the department chair, perhaps that's some other tenured faculty member. I would identify such a person and approach him or her with a very careful, very measured question about  handling your advisor. It might be that the chair, for instance, knows a way to move you to another group without ruffling feathers. Or it might be that a colleague can tell you: "yes, this person is impossible you're better off running for the hills."

Can't +1 this enough. A similar situation led to me dropping out of grad school, after 2 years. One of the last times I saw my advisor, he asked me if I'd found a new one. The thought had never crossed my mind. If only he'd mentioned the possibility before it was too late.

Given that I'm working totally independently on my Ph.D. degree, can I state that to future academic employers as a justification for what could be sub-optimal research work? or would that sound like I'm not taking full responsibility?

Well, are you taking full responsibility? It does not sound like it to me.
Basically, playing the blame game is never a good idea in the hiring circuit. You will try to frame your situation as "I was in a bad spot, but I made the best of it even if the outcome wasn't great", but to everybody who is hiring it will sound like "I was in a bad spot, and I made no attempts to change the spot". Even worse, in your specific situation, what I hear is "I was in a pretty regular spot [my advisor did not spoon-feed me with ideas, and I needed some time to get started], and now I am pretending like I was in a very bad spot".
What you should do:

Re-evaluate your expectations. Being "more than a year in" when you start publishing sounds quite normal to me. Having "wasted" some time researching directions that did not work out is also the most normal thing in the world in science.
Start taking responsibility. Do good work in the environment you are in, or change the environment.
Accept that in a PhD study, the by far dominating factor of your success is you. Advisors, topics, environment matter. You matter much, much more.

It's not about blaming or criticizing my advisor. Actually, It's more about mentioning that my Ph.D. degree was earned independently with the hope that I receive a fairer assessment of my profile compared to regular Ph.D. students.

What a regular PHD student is? Most people do not publish before at least 1.5+ years as the main authors.

If you do your work independently of your advisor, you should be able to publish it under you own name only. That will be a good proof that you have done the work independently. It is also tricky, depending on the personality of the advisor and on whether you have to use complicated equipment that is paid by adivsor money, etc.

You never want to pass the blame to someone else that's career suicide. Consider quitting a job and then at an interview you are asked  "Why did you quit?" and you going to answer with "My boss did not pay enough attention to my work so I could not perform as well" while that might be true that doesn't mean it's a good idea. As soon as you throw someone under the bus during an interview the employer is to assume you'd throw them and/or their company down the same way.

Given that I'm working totally independently on my Ph.D. degree,

Well, it seems quite normal to me. That's your PhD, your research. The advisor is here to provide guidance, not to work with you or for you (while the former is of course the ideal situation).

can I state that to future academic employers as a justification for what could be sub-optimal research work?

You can state whatever you want, but keep in mind that the hiring process in academia is a competition. If your application is weaker than the others, you won't be recruited, even if there are solid explanations to the weakness of your application.
I'd like to add a point on your sentence "Navigating solely through the literature is arguably the worst part of Ph.D Grind. ". I don't know in which field you're at, but if you don't like this part, you will have a painful academic life. In some fields most of the time is dedicated to literature (art, history, etc.), and even in the most recent fields (CS for instance), it's still a large part of the working load.

Navigating literature at the beginning of your Ph.D.  is much harder than later on. Basically, one needs to build a big picture about what has been done already and what could be done to build on that. This is where advisors are actually needed to save students substantial amount of time and make them more focused on interesting areas. Later on, I'd argue that the role of an advisor would be much less required since students can already "fly" on their own.

@abk Advisor may help at this step of the PhD, but they are not archivist or information officer. So helping with the methodology is our job, but not telling the student what is the perimeter of what (s)he should read. As a PhD student, you are not here to solve a problem, you are here first to find your own problem, then to solve it. The first step being the most important to start a good research career.

The whole point of being awarded a PhD is that you're able to develop your own research ideas and carry them out.  If you go whining that you did badly because you were forced to develop your own research ideas and carry them out to get a PhD you're not going to get sympathy from anyone.  You're definitely never going to get a postdoc.

He mentions that the advisor isn't really aware of the state of the art. Being sent into the wild by a non-expert, for something that may be impossible or useless, generally does not lead to productive results. The process of even realizing the advisor's ignorance is gradual and demoralizing. Part of any intellectual work is evaluating one's team and management, and at some point you have to draw the line. It depends on chances of success, and whether "successful" completion of the project translates meaningfully to the actual field, which may have been misunderstood in the first place.


text:
How do weak students who want to do PhD's get into masters programmes in the first place?
One common piece of advice for weak students who want to go into academia is that they do a terminal master's degree first before applying to PhD programmes. This, however, bothers me for two reasons:

If I'm not mistaken, master's degrees are, in some places, often seen as the first of a two-part process to getting advanced degrees, where the PhD is the second part. (This is the sense I get of many non-American systems.) So finding a terminal master's programme doesn't sound that simple to me, although this may depend on the field.
I would imagine that there's still a need for decent grades / recommendations / etc. to get into a master's programme in the first place. Something like GRE scores can be readily fixed via preparation, but a lack of appropriate coursework (due to concentration mismatch) or poor grades cannot be, and this might also mean very weak recommendations. In some fields where doing research assistant jobs after graduation are common, this might be still resolvable, but it does not appear to be so in something like math or the humanities.

If so, how viable it is actually to get into a terminal master's programme in order to boost future applications to PhD programmes?

The short reason is that most terminal master's (non linked to a PhD) are unfunded, while you are paid for PhD positions. It is much easier to get a university let you pay them, that get them to pay you. Regarding the terminality, to my knowledge, only in the American system MSc and PhD are commonly linked; but even there there are plenty of master's programs not oriented towards a PhD, mostly professional programs.

Can you specify which places you are referring to (or explicitly confirm you are looking for how realistic such a master's programme is around the world)? The reason I am asking is that, for instance, I can think of some "non-American systems" where the Master's degree is rather the second part of a two-part process of getting a "normal, industry-level" degree (the first part being the Bachelor's degree), and a comparably small percentage of the graduated Master's students then decides to go on with a doctoral degree and thereby, for a change, work for an entirely research-focused degree.

@O.R.Mapper: I'm speaking mostly as someone from the US system. I have seen people from the US who want to do grad school in, say, Germany or the UK, where I could imagine something similar still being an issue though, so I'm also interested in a more . . . international perspective.

For the system in Québec (Canada), we have funded master degree programs (by researchers, at least in STEM). Unless they come from abroad or other specific reason, all student (not only weak ones) do a master degree, then a PhD. To answer your question, very viable.

As per the comments, you are interested in finding information from various places around the world, so I will provide a perspective from Germany (possibly limited, as there is a partial focus on computer science and closely related degrees, with which I am more experienced compared to other areas):

If I'm not mistaken, master's degrees are, in some places, often seen as the first of a two-part process to getting advanced degrees, where the PhD is the second part.

As described elsewhere, Bachelor and Master often form a consecutive unit in Germany. The reason is historical, as the former Diplom degrees were cut into two parts approximately in the middle to insert the Bachelor degree after the first part of the studies. Studying for a doctoral degree optionally followed for some students after graduating with a Diplom, and likewise, it now optionally follows for some students after graduating with a Master's degree.
Therefore, at least in Germany, the Master's degree is the second of a two-part process of getting "basic, industry-level" degrees (the first part being the Bachelor's degree). Accordingly, in 2011 and 2012 (sources only in German, sorry), about 3/4 of all students who graduate from a German university with a Bachelor's degree continued to study for a Master's degree.
The doctoral degree is something separate that only a smaller fraction of students who graduated with a Master's degree start, as it usually focuses on research rather than educating a highly skilled employee for the industry.
Therefore, as an answer to your first question

So finding a terminal master's programme doesn't sound that simple to me, although this may depend on the field.

While there are some disciplines (chemistry maybe?) where traditionally many Master graduates continue for a doctoral degree, entering the Master's degree as a terminal degree before completing one's higher education and starting to work full-time is rather the default in Germany.

I would imagine that there's still a need for decent grades / recommendations / etc. to get into a master's programme in the first place.

Again related to the aforementioned historical development, there is a strong feeling that whoever has successfully completed their Bachelor's degree must be allowed to continue their studies if they so desire (as with the former Diplom degrees, no-one would be kicked out in the middle of their studies, either, unless they actually failed the requirements).
While I am not sure whether it is always possible at all universities to accommodate everyone who would like to continue with a Master's degree, I could get some limited insight into the "selection process" for which Bachelor graduates may continue with the Master studies on a few occasions. The general guideline was that unless there were any absolutely terrible obstacles (with previous marks that are bad, and just enough to fulfil the minimum requirements to get a Bachelor's degree explicitly not counting as such an obstacle), every applicant should be accepted.
Hence, getting into a Master's programme is not an overly hard problem; chances that one has to abort these studies due to failing exams during the Master studies are likely to be considerably higher.
This leaves two final summarizing statements:

If so, how viable it is actually to get into a terminal master's programme

In Germany, probably rather viable.

in order to boost future applications to PhD programmes?

In Germany, it's not a "boost" in the sense that improves chances prior to getting the degree; for most, if not all doctoral programmes, having a Master's degree is a minimum requirement.

I think that this is not the case only in Germany, but in the entire EU (and associated countries), due to the Bologna process.

In Denmark, Norway and Sweden - at least, it works the same way. Not getting a Masters, after a bachelor degree, is uncommon. We have no bachelor job market, other than perhaps a few part time jobs.

In the UK at least, most PhDs are separate from a Masters, so I don't agree with your first point. In fact it is much more common to have the Masters and Bachelors combined into one program.
I believe it is the same in most European countries that people applying for a PhD are required to have already done a masters.
For your second point I believe the logic would be that if you are a poor applicant now, then getting a masters, which presumably has lower entry requirements will give you another opportunity to show how good you can be and improve your prospects.
It stands to reason that the entry requirements for a masters should be lower than the PhD as the masters is the lower degree. How much lower is likely to depend on the demand for separate masters courses. If most strong candidates go directly into a PhD program and then entry requirements for a separate masters must be lower or places will not get filled.

Speaking from a humanities perspective, I know of people who have gotten Master's degrees before going on to do a Ph.D. (usually at a different university). If the question is whether this will boost an applicant's chances of getting into a Ph.D. program, it depends. The real measure is always going to be the quality of the student's work, the strength of the recommendations, and their previous academic record. Obviously, these are all things that can be improved on by getting a Master's first. But all of this will still be measured against all the other applicants to the program, and in that reckoning it is not necessarily an advantage by itself.
Most top Ph.D. programs (again, I can only speak for the humanities) do not even offer a terminal Master's, so the value may be negligible when applying to them. Even those schools that do offer them will not usually offer an increased chance of admittance to the higher degree program, and the student would still be evaluated on an equal footing with other applicants—ideally, too!
Furthermore, the credits earned in the Master's program may not even transfer to the Ph.D. program. They could satisfy certain other requirements, but as far as I know you have to start over from the beginning when embarking on a Ph.D. It's a complete package, in other words, so while you may get valuable experience doing the Master's (and probably pay a premium for it), you'd have to repeat much of it again anyway, further putting its value in question.
But, like I said, I know people who have done it. Job prospects and rates of attrition being what they are, the advice you will often hear is a Ph.D. is only worth doing if you can get into a top program, and if you can't get your Ph.D. paid for, then you shouldn't get one at all. That's rather cynical, and you can counter it with talk of dreams and perseverance, but if a person hasn't demonstrated an academic inclination by the time they graduate college, it may be wishful thinking to presume it's possible to change, catch up, or otherwise compensate for what is lacking in the initial application package.
This is just my own perspective. Your question cannot be answered definitively because there is no formula, and admissions decisions are made by human beings who tend to have strong opinions, who negotiate over the make-up of any incoming class, and who may value different things than their colleagues for different reasons.
It's worth considering the opportunity cost of spending money on a Master's that may lead nowhere versus some other, more promising career path. Of course there's no harm in furthering an education for its own sake (and you can tell yourself this if things don't work out), but I would say it's not worth it to get one of these degrees, for the most part. Most Master's programs seem to me to be cash cows for the universities, and you won't necessarily learn more about a subject by sitting in graduate seminars than you could on your own for free. That's the really cynical opinion! But graduate education is about professionalization, for the most part, not just teaching you more information. You might say that in college you learn how to acquire knowledge, whereas in grad school you learn how to use knowledge to create more of it. Only a very few number of people end shaping any given discourse compared to the number of people who try to get there. It's a long shot for everyone.
The best advice is to get as much advice as possible from different people who know what they're talking about (professors, admissions officers, deans, other grad students, etc.) and then see how you feel. Much of what you hear will be contradictory, because people have different opinions and varying degrees of innate optimism. But you will notice patterns.
It's a difficult decision to make this kind of commitment. No one can make it for you or predict the odds of your success.

This is a U.S. oriented perspective, by the way. Coming into the U.S. with a foreign Master's may have even less value, if you're curious about that.

I am someone who got into a funded masters program after a weak undergraduate degree in the US and leveraged that masters degree into the PhD program of my choosing.
In short, I got lucky. My undergraduate advisor went to graduate school with my masters advisor. He vouched for me, and I had done plenty of research as an undergraduate, just my GPA was exactly a 3.0 (not good enough for top programs).
I was also lucky that I had high level math skills and programming skills that many people in my new field do not learn but people in physics do learn.
The masters degree came at an unranked program, but the research results were great for such a short time, at least i've been told (and reviewed).
To put it bluntly, I applied to 5 phd programs and got into 0 before I had my masters degree.
2 years later I got into 6/8 PhD programs I applied to, with the 2 rejections a personal note saying that funding that they expected to come in to take me did not come in.
My best advice in the US is to get your foot in the door in any kind of research, leverage those recommendations into a program, and take it from there. It really is no different than anything else, you just need to find a way to establish a track record, and get lucky.

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: Светодиодные решения

sort: votes


text:
How can I adapt my scientific writing for the modern web?
Papers written for conferences and journals are today mainly available as PDFs. There are several usability issues with the PDF format, one of which is that it is not especially well suited for the modern way of reading on screens. Unlike e-book formats such as epub or mobi, it doesn't adapt to a for the user desired text size, and is especially broken for e-ink readers that cannot rely on zooming and swiftly moving around as you scan for referenced figures and tables.
Thus, I would like to contribute to the death of the PDF to the best of my ability. All my scientific writing is already done in either Markdown or LaTeX which can then be exported using Pandoc to several different formats, but this only works as long as you don't try to use anything beyond the most basic of features in LaTeX. I guess I could in this manner upload all of my papers to a blog for general consumption, but I'm not sure this is the most appropriate way. One problem is that I won't actually use a lot of the power the web brings, e.g. direct links to cited sources, without requiring extra effort in the conversion step.
I am sure I'm not the first one thinking about this. Are there already people doing this, and if so how? Is there an ongoing discussion about the future of academic publishing in the age of the modern web?

Wow.  Reference that "almost all" publishing is PDF?

@GEdgar No reference, other than personal experience and years of using Google Scholar. If you think otherwise I'm happy to edit my question.

This is the first I had heard of the claim...  Using the book I am now reading as a sample, I looked it up on Amazon.  It is available in Kindle, Hardcover, and Audible.  But no mention of availability in PDF.

@GEdgar Sure, books are generally different. I was mainly thinking of (conference and journal) papers. Will update the question.

@GEdgar: if you look at e-books on Amazon, indeed the only format you'll find is the Kindle one. But if you look at the publisher websites you frequently find the PDF format too (and not the Kindle one).

@gedgar Kindle and Audible are closed proprietary formats owned and controlled by Amazon. If you look on Amazon, that's what you'll find ;-)

Getting decent mathematics in HTML and EPUB is still a challenge. Before Mathjax took over a few years ago, basically the only option was embedding images. Now things look a bit better for the web; however, for E-books, as far as I know there are no good options. MathML never took off and has limited support.

"Papers written for conferences and journals are today mainly available as PDFs" ... that I readily believe.

@GEdgar: On this site, I think it's reasonable to interpret "publishing" as "academic publishing".

For journals, at least, many now publish online in HTML.  This includes many large cross-field publications including well-known venues such as Nature and PLOS ONE,
to name only a few of many.  Your paper will generally be available in PDF as well, but the default that the journal steers people to is generally HTML.
An action you might then take would be to choose to submit only to journals with HTML publication of this sort.

I wonder how many people read the HTML version... If I just want to skim the paper, the HTML version is ok, but if I want to read it I really do prefer the PDF version.

@MassimoOrtolano Me too --- but I think OP may not like our attitude.

@jakebeal No I agree, I rarely read the HTML versions when they are available. Mainly because the layout usually is horrible for reading, and often feels more like an after-thought (which it is, the conversion tools are often below-standard).

@JimmyC What exactly do you expect? There are people whose sole jobs are arranging and formatting scientific papers to look nice with one specific layout (usually PDF). If you want the user to have more format-free content, then you won't get typesetters' expertise, and your document won't naturally look good. In the end someone -- either a typesetter or the end user -- has to put in effort to make a good document.

@ChrisWhite I wouldn't expect much today, but we really ought to start typesetting for screen first, not for paper first. PDF is not the answer for this.

Rob Beezer has been working on MathBook XML, which is an XML application specifically for making online scientific documents.  The XML has various features you can't do in pdfs, like in-line interactive computations and "knowls."  Rob's Linear Algebra book gives an example in action, and you can find others listed on the MathBook XML page.  He has slides from a talk about MathBook XML that give you an overview of what it's about.  One of the goals is to be able to easily convert to other formats such as latex and epub, which sounds just like what you want.  I haven't personally used it, so I don't know what stage the conversions are at now or how various features are implemented, but  according to the slides (from last fall), the are conversions to html, latex and Sage notebooks are still being improved, and the epub conversion is still to do.

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


text:
Why are lawyers not called "doctor"?
I don't quite understand the education process for lawyers, but I do understand there are a number of different degrees, and one of them is 'JD', the juris doctor. My Latin is quite rusty, but I believe that is "Doctor of Law."
So why are they not called "doctor" in common practice, like any PhD is? Is the JD actually not similar to a doctorate program? If not, then why does it take the name doctor?
I understand that the JD is what they call a "1st degree" and there are even higher degrees. The LLM, for example, is a "Master of Laws", which really confuses things now because "master" degrees are normally less than "doctor" degrees. So if a JD is not not called a "doctor" for some logical reason, what about the LLM, since it is a higher degree?

I'm coming from an American perspective, so I would like an answer from an American perspective, please.

The vast majority of PhDs are almost never called "doctor", it's generally used for medical doctors.

@CapeCode Where is that? All the one's I know are called "doctor".

Have you read the Wikipedia page?

@PeterTaylor Yes, and it sounds like a pretty involved degree to me.

A few months ago I saw the film Conspiracy, released in 2010, about the Wannsee conference of January 1942 at which the policy of genocide against Jews was was made to government ministers by an SS general. In that film, the general repeated addressed two lawyers as "Doctor".  So that is one time and place where that title was used for lawyers.

The pretentious PhDs do demand to be called doctor.

@matthew Pretentiousness is not a requirement to want recognition for your contributions to the field.

"attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed"

The American Bar Association has a nice explanatory essay that answers exactly this question.
In essence, in the United States, the J.D. degree is quite new, with lawyers having previously received a professional degree that was not called a doctorate.  As such, it has generally been considered problematically confusing to call a lawyer "doctor" and also possibly unethical as undue self-promotion (lawyers used to be prohibited even from advertising in many areas).


text:
How can a non-native English speaker get assistance in publishing a manuscript in English?
I am not a native English speaker, and I am writing a paper in English (maths) with the aim of getting published in a peer reviewed journal. If I write the manuscript myself, the poor grammar would prevent it from being accepted. If I give the manuscript to a native-English speaking expert in my area of maths, they may steal my ideas. If I give the manuscript to an expert just in English, they  won't be able to fully help because they won't understand the ideas comprehensively.
Would someone please guide me how to solve this situation?

EIther give it to a mathematician friend / supervisor who knows better English and you can trust him or learn better English yourself by studying more papers in your math area. There is probably no other way.

Or get a co-author who is English speaking. That wont be stealing your ideas, it will be sharing the contribution with another co-author.

@Jeromy Anglim: By editing my OP, I now see that my writing skill is worse than I thought it was!

http://webshop.elsevier.com/languageservices/languageediting/

In mathematics, it is entirely reasonable and acceptable to begin by posting a draft on arXiv.  Once it's up online with your name and a date-stamp, you need not fear anybody stealing your ideas, and can work on improving the manuscript, both in content and grammar, with whatever combination of colleagues and collaborators you find best suited for the task.

A growing number of journals and publishers now recognise that quality of written English is not automatically correlated with academic merit. In life sciences, I know several publishers who actively recommend 'language polishing' services as it allows peer reviewers to focus on scientific issues rather than correcting language. For example:

The Royal Society
Nature Publishing Group

At the same time it is important to recognise that substantial editing that is not acknowledged within the manuscript can be considered unethical. Some journals have a strict policy of acknowledging any writing or editing assistance (for example, NEJM). See this article for a discussion of some of the issues.

To clarify for L.G. I know some of the English-language editing services use academics in your field (e.g. Cactus communications), although they are not cheap. You could look into small grants etc through your institution or science foundations that might support this sort of thing.
As a reviewer I have often tried to assist with suggestions where needed on papers that would otherwise be suitable to publish - but this is not in the scope of what is expected of reviewers.


text:
How will my CLEP credits be viewed?
I have taken 12 credits total in CLEP (College Level Examination Program) exams on order to bypass some general education requirements in humanities and basic sciences. I am in a program majoring in Physics and Engineering with a minor in Geosciences at a well-known state university.
My question is: How will my CLEP credits be viewed academically (i.e. when apply for grad school)? By potential employers? Will they be considered an asset or will they be seen as an inferior source of credits?

Hi, and welcome to Academia.SE!  Can you please add an expansion of the acronym CLEP for those of us who aren't familiar with it?

There are similar college level examination programs in many countries. Please specify your location.

No one is going to care about your CLEP credits for general education courses.  Your grades in major courses, your standardized test scores, letters of recommendation, and any research experience that you might have are for more important.


text:
Should I ask one of my university lectures to be my mentor?
'm a computer science student in the UK and I've just finished my first year. I know next year I will be doing a lot more programming but there is very little C in the curriculum. I know some of my lecturers are avid C programmers would it be inappropriate to ask one of them to mentor me as I really want to be a competent C programmer or has anyone ever heard of less experienced students assisting with university research with their volunteered time?

It sounds to me like what you are looking for is less of a mentor and more of a tutor, who can work with you on basic skills and basic questions.  A mentor is more a person who you talk with infrequently to get advice.
As such, asking one of your lecturers to volunteer is likely to be inappropriate.  You might instead look to see if one of the upper level students might be interested---but if you need extensive tutoring, you will likely need to make it worth their while, whether that is in pay or in trade of same sort.

It is unlikely that your lecturer will be interested in one-on-one tutoring, but they may be willing to provide more general advice for where and how to learn the skill you are seeking to develop.  It is perfectly fine for you to approach your lecturer to ask their advice on learning programming, but just don't expect them to tutor you in it.  Perhaps you could seek some general guidance on finding appropriate learning resources, or getting tips for how to learn effectively.
As to seeking a more general mentoring role, that is probably quite premature at this stage in your degree.  This is something that usually happens when a lecturer works in a supervisory capacity for a student doing some kind of research topic.  This can occur in certain honours projects in undergraduate work or in a postgraduate research degree.  Since you are in first-year, it is likely that you have a lot of basics to learn before a mentoring role with a professional academic will be useful.  Nevertheless, you could flag your interest in this field with one of your lecturers and consider them as a possible future supervisor (e.g., for an honours project).

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


text:
How applicable are software engineering internships to computer science research and graduate school?
This fall I will begin my undergraduate degree in computer science at a top-5 program (to whom it offends, I'm sorry to use rankings). My goal after I graduate is to get a PhD so I can research and teach computer science.
I understand it may seem fairly early to start thinking about the summer of 2016, but career fairs and application deadlines will arrive soon, and I'd like to prepare for internships and research opportunities as best as possible. Since my primary goal is to stay in academia (or non-industry research, if that's a thing), would an industry internship help me reach my goals? Is it worth the time to acquire a little bit of industry experience? To be a bit more clear, I have a massive list of opportunities I'd like to apply for next summer. Of the approximately 25 items on the list, 15 of them are software engineering internships. For example:

Google
Amazon
Facebook
Microsoft
NASA
Intel

Then, there are certain programs that I think I like slightly more, because it seems they are very research-oriented despite still being "industry":

Wolfram
Nvidia

The programs I am most interested in are purely research-oriented, and most are undergraduate positions at various laboratories across the country. Most of these are funded by the United States Department of Energy.
In Summary
I understand that research experience is very important to PhD admissions in the field of computer science. I'd love to gain as much research experience as I can, as long as I'm interested in it. Is it frowned upon to have little to no experience in industry, when applying to PhD programs? Also, before I get ahead of myself, I understand that it is quite difficult to get an internship position at any of these companies or laboratories.
Don't get me wrong, I love actually writing code and working on applied software projects. I just don't love writing code for a salary.

You are correct that research experience is extremely valuable for getting into graduate programs.  Internships are one way of gaining such experience, but far from the only way.  At a high-ranked university, however, there will also be lots of opportunities with professors, both during the term and in the summers, and those will be at least as applicable, if not more so, for getting into graduate school.  Industry experience as a full-time employee can be great for showing maturity and various skills not typically acquired during undergraduate, but frankly, you're not going to develop a significant and differentiating amount of such skills in a couple months as an intern either.
In short: no, you don't need industry experience to get into graduate school.


text:
Allocating master student schedules to fit semi-commercial research interests
I am a master student at a big university in Germany. I am not a chemistry student myself, but as I am active in university politics, an issue was brought to me that I am not sure how to deal with.
Master students in chemistry have to do mandatory lab hours to be admitted to the exam for some specific modules. During these lab hours they synthesize chemicals for semi-commercial research projects which is a win-win situation for the professors and the students as students get in touch with real research and the professors get a lot of work done.
The problem is that over the last years a lot of postdoc and doctarate positions got cancelled because of an austerity program. The professors subsequently assigned more and more lab hours while decreasing the hours for self-study to stay within the 30 hours/credit point requirement. The demand for knowledge from the lectures stayed the same, so students actually need the same amount of self-study as before. There seems to be a big conflict of interests.
I cannot prove it, but sources from the working groups told me that at least one professor informally made clear, that he is well aware of this issue, but chooses to take benefits from it.
I am not asking if this is ethical as this is clearly not the case. I am asking what I can do to end this exploitation of master students. Who is the right person to talk to about these issues? Is it even adequate maybe to take legal action against the faculty?

Might be interested in this question: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/24526/is-it-ethical-for-a-professor-to-get-masters-students-to-work-on-open-source-mod

In United States, funding agencies mandate conflict of interest disclosures from researchers. As result, the universities have people whose job is to manage conflict of interest. If your university has such people, they might help. I do not see a basis for a legal action though (is there a contract with the student that university breaches?).

Alexandros: The question you mentioned is indeed interesting as the issues touched are very similar. Thanks for the hint.

Can you elaborate on the phrase "semi-commercial"? What are these products being used for? Who benefits, in what way, and how much?

Nate Eldredge: The research is done using third-party funds. I might be wrong, but i think think the third party gets certain rights to the patents the research yields.

First, see if you can find some existing university policy you could use as a basis for a complaint.  The other place you could look would be in some professional societies for their ethics policies.  Your university would not be bound to follow ethics recommendation made by outside bodies, but still it could be a useful reference to help you apply pressure.
If there is no university (or government) ethics policy in place, then you can lobby for one to be created.  Look at some general ethics policies and try to draw something up as a proposal.
I don't know where in your university governance structure you could submit a proposal of this sort -- that could vary from country to country or even by institution.
Once you have a proposal or a platform, you need broad support.  It's okay if you don't have a ton of people supporting it initially.  As you become more public in advocating for your university to comply with its own policy, or for it to enact a policy, people will join you.  Be ready to catch them with at minimum a google group.
Hopefully you can get some faculty to join with you in advocating for some clear limits for the chemistry students' non-academic requirements.  Hopefully they will see that the level of excellence of the institution will go down if students are spending too much time on "production", and not enough time expanding their knowledge and creativity.
Point of comparison: in the U.S., graduate teaching assistants work 20 hours a week.  Based on my experience as a TA, I would say that it would be difficult or impossible for most mere mortals to make significant progress in the graduate studies if the work hours per week were above 25.


text:
Possible to put online a PhD dissertation under a Creative Commons license, as some text is (c) by publishers?
It is inevitable that several parts of a PhD dissertation come from published papers. The publishers who claim copyright (or exclusive right to publish) of articles are aware of this, and they allow authors to include their papers in dissertations.
As an example, the following is an excerpt from a typical Springer copyright transfer agreement:

Author retains the right to use his/her Contribution for his/her further scientific career by including the final published paper in his/her dissertation or doctoral thesis provided acknowledgment is given to the original source of publication.

Furthermore, in the case of monographs the paper contents are often split up to become part of the new text. You do not even use the publisher's PDF, just your produced articles. You sort of include pre-and post-prints.
Now, provided that all the publishers' demands (e.g., acknowledging the source of publication) are met, can one put online a PhD dissertation, which contains both original text and text from copyrighted material, under a Creative Commons license? In particular, the CC-BY license.

If the copyright in the material is held by someone else, you cannot license the entire work CC-BY. The Springer (etc) permission for a doctoral thesis is a specific exception and does not extend to allowing you to relicense the underlying work.

With the standard disclaimer (I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.): in order to put your dissertation under a CC license, you need to have the right to redistribute all material in the dissertation under that license. To that end, you might find it useful to classify each piece of your dissertation according to the following criteria:

You hold the copyright in the material. This applies to anything you've written yourself as long as the copyright has not been transferred to another party. OK.
You don't hold the copyright in the material...

...but the copyright holder has licensed it to you for redistribution...

...and the terms allow you to redistribute it under the CC license. OK. This is the case for any material from papers that are themselves distributed under the CC license you want to use. It may also be the case for papers that are not CC-licensed, depending on the terms of the copyright transfer agreement.
...and the terms don't allow you to redistribute it under the CC license...

...but your use of the material is defensible as fair use. OK. This is probably the case if you're quoting passages here and there. Maybe reusing a figure.
...and your use of the material is not defensible as fair use. STOP. You cannot put your dissertation under the CC license.

...and the copyright holder has not licensed it to you for redistribution...

...but your use of the material is defensible as fair use. OK.
...and your use of the material is not defensible as fair use. STOP. If anything in this category is in your dissertation, you can't distribute it at all (which makes it fairly useless as a dissertation).

The question in your case is whether the copyright transfer agreement gives you the right to redistribute under a CC license - in other words, does the material you take from your papers fall under 2.1.1 or 2.1.2? That you probably need to consult a lawyer for.
In the part of the agreement you quoted, it sure seems like the only condition they put on your reuse of the material is that you give credit, and if that's really the case, then it's okay (because you will give credit; that's just good academics and also part of the CC license itself). But the piece of the agreement you quoted doesn't actually say you're allowed to redistribute your distribution with the Springer-owned material in it, and even if you are, it doesn't say you're allowed to choose the license. This is the sort of thing a lawyer might pick on, and why I say you need to consult one of your own.

Everything you write makes sense. But the usual case for PhD dissertations is that they are published into some preserved repositories. So they are distributed. Perhaps I would be allowed to put my thesis in a repository such as arXiv, but not under a CC-BY license.

Yeah, that is a possibility. The quote you gave in the question is not clear about what exactly you're allowed to do with material you reuse for your dissertation, which is why all I can really say is that you need to hear from a lawyer.


text:
What weight does a visiting assistant professorship in a different field carry in tenure track faculty applications?
I am finishing my PhD next month in Philosophy. I've been offered a Visiting Assistant Professorship (VAP) in Mathematics at a very good (nationally recognized) Small Liberal Arts College (SLAC).
I have alternative options, and I have a handle on the money situation.
I'm looking further down the road. Suppose I take the VAP. Suppose I'm applying next year for Tenure Track jobs in Philosophy.
The question: In your experience, what weight does a VAP from a different field carry when evaluating an application?

I can't speak for disciplines other than philosophy, but some of the points below may translate to other fields.
In philosophy I think that there are some departments and some philosophers who would feel that the VAP in math is very impressive, and others who will discount it completely or view it negatively.
If your research area is mathematical (e.g. philosophy of: math, logic, science, or decision theory), then teaching in a math department shows that you know math well enough that mathematicians are willing to hire you.
That's good: It's a sign that you have the technical ability to do work in your area.  You could also argue (in interviews, letters of application, etc.) that teaching math to undergraduates will help you teach mathematical philosophy to undergraduates.  Those people whose research is in mathematical areas of philosophy are likely to be most impressed.
But it can be bad, too: Some people on hiring committees will worry that you're too mathematical.  "Is he/she really a philosopher?  Will we be able to understand her/his research?  Have interesting philosophical conversations?"
Philosophy hiring committees often have to go through hundreds of applications.  People mean well, but they're busy, and there's time pressure, and they sometimes end up making decisions based on trivial features or biases.  Your math job can be one of those factors, either a positive one or a negative one.
It may be that the math job would be most beneficial with the highest-ranked departments, but most jobs are not in those departments.  I'm not sure about the first point.
If you take the math job, I recommend doing as much as you can to show that you're a "real" philosopher through your publications and conference presentations.  You can highlight both the benefits of your math job to a philosophy department, and what you're also doing that's purely philosophical.  You should highlight these things in your application letters in way that doesn't sound at all defensive (although some people don't read these letters).  It might be even more valuable to have one of the people who writes a letter of recommendation--a philosopher--to highlight these points.
(Finally, any advice of this kind should be taken with a grain of salt.  Or a whole shaker.  No one really knows.)

It would be positive, in my experience, but my department (linguistics) went to extremes to be interdisciplinary. Decades ago,  they were more disciplinary and a question could arise if a candidate held a position in e.g. psychology. But even then, raised questions are usually answered by looking at a candidates CV and publications. In the current climate, I think it would be either neutral or positive, depending on whether there were a need to forge relations between math and philosophy.

Experience at a very well regarded liberal arts college will be a strong plus if you're applying for positions at liberal arts colleges.


text:
Around what percentage of universities require(d) Ancient Greek and Latin for admissions?
I limit this question to universities in Canada, UK, and the US.
 In general:
Please see the titled question, and provide dates if known.
2 Examples: p. 10 of 17 of this PDF states Oxford University's admissions requirement of Ancient Greek until 1920 and Latin until 1960.
This Quora answer quotes this book:

In 1883, the last year in which the classical languages were compulsory for Harvard freshman, all studied Latin and Greek.

I added the [tag:reference-request] tag because presumably a good answer to this question would need to cite supporting documentation...

I'm downvoting this question because I don't think it is relevant to the site. I think it would be a better fit at history stackexchange, or something similar.

@Johanna I am upvoting because I think that it is an interesting piece of the history of academia, and I'd really like to know the answer.

@jakebeal While I'm also really curious about this question, wouldn't it be more suited for the history stackexchange site? Not trying to ruffle any feathers or be a contrarian, I just haven't seen many questions in this vein in my (very short) time as an Academia.SE user.

@Simoo My attempt at History SE here was (wrongfully?) closed as off-topic, but I question its closure here. Nevertheless, I posted here because a question about the history of unis, should be on-topic here?

If the question were phrased as "How many universities require Ancient Greek or Latin", I think it would be clearly on-topic, even if easily answered with "none". I don't see that asking a question about practices in academia from a historical perspective makes a question off-topic.

We can let this stay here for a bit to see if it gets any answers, but honestly I agree that you're more likely to get answers on History.SE.

@eykanal Thanks. Did you read my comment above: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/49163/what-rough-percentage-of-universities-required-ancient-greek-and-latin-from-whe?noredirect=1#comment114014_49163?

@LePressentiment - Ach, no I did not, thanks for highlighting. (Bad moderator, no biscuit.) We get questions of this type from time to time, where it's not clear where it's a best fit, and unfortunately they tend to go unanswered. Typically, it's because it requires a lot of multidisciplinary knowledge (history of academia and scientific study in this case) which is tough to find. I'll leave it open, but I'm kinda pessimistic about you getting a good answer.

One of the stated goals of the forum is to answer questions regarding requirements and expectations of academicians. While it may be a stretch this question goes to a perspective on how those requirements and expectations changed over the course of the 20th century. Those of us in the Biological and Health Sciences are still immersed in Greek and Latin terminology, even though proficiency in those disciplines is no longer required and the overwhelming shift has been to English. Many suggest that German be studied by Chemists and Physicists so that they can read seminal works untranslated.

Also remember that those requirements were in place as a way of maintaining exclusivity. Only the elites or the very motivated would have been trained in Ancient Greek and Latin, and as a result, only that strata of society was selected to the academy. The twentieth century saw an unprecedented democratization of advanced education and like the Protestant Reformation before it came from the a transition to the vernacular. In a day and age where even an undergraduate degree does not often fulfill the minimum requirements for many careers, a perspective on how we got here is important.

If this were about requirements for admission of graduate schools, I would say it would be on-topic. But, ... . I vote to close as off-topic because it's an undergraduate issue.

While I disagree with that this question is off-topic here, I think it will be on-topic on [hsm.se]. See in particular their academia tag.

I believe that much more germane is the overall ambiguity of the question. Require Latin and Greek for what? All majors? Graduate students? Undergraduate general education? Some still require it for certain majors, and likely always will (e.g. no self-respecting classicist can't read ancient greek), and others might not, even when it seems like they would.

My mother studied Philology (with specialization in Lithuanian language) in Vilnius State University (Lithuania) from 1960 till 1965. Not only these studies included both Latin and ancient Greek, but also one of the tasks was to translate significant part of Iliad. She worked as a senior teacher and the school director assistant for many years afterwards. I have studied Biology in the same university thirty years later. We had some introductory Latin course (biologists need to remember lots of Latin names of animals, plants and fungi), but it was not deep enough to learn speaking or reading ar

I vote to close as off-topic because it's an undergraduate issue — No, it's a university administration issue.

As user6726 suggested, I think the question should be reworded as present tense "What rough percentage of universities require Ancient Greek and Latin?". I think the user should make another post in History of Science and Mathematics for the '..from when to when?' part.

Not quite an answer (because small sample and not US) but according to the website of Uni Würzburg, Latin is a prerequisite for the first state exam of high school teachers in Bavaria in the following subjects: German, English, French, History, Italian, Katholic Religion, Spanish, Greek. And Ancient Greek is a prerequisite for the first state exam of high school teachers of Latin and Katholic Religion. Also, Latin and / or Ancient Greek is required for a number of Philology, History and Archeology degrees.

Oh, I thought the OP was talking about today.If the OP is referring to the past then the question should be reformulated: What was the percentage of anglophone universities that required Ancient Greek and Latin? The "when" question in the title isn't strictly essential.

I don't think any "major" or "top tier" universities in the USA have any language requirements other than English. Even then, you don't really have to speak English as much as be able to manage HW's and exams in English.
St. Johns would certainly appreciate it but most courses won't read classics in their native language.
My friend is finishing a PhD in classical history at an Ivy League program and he was unique in his knowledge of Latin from high school. I'm pretty sure 0 colleges require Latin or Greek.

HW refers to what?

HW is short for home work

Foreigners are often required to take the TOEFL test of English and have a certain score.

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

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Reasonablity of evaluation methods in developed countries for Maths and Sci students
Globally considering, in many (or maybe all) developing countries professors/lecturers in universities only take mid-term and final few-hour-exams to evaluate students' learning. In some (or maybe all) developed countries they evaluate students by some combination of three types of factors:

written assignments, i.e. student have to do their research on the subject and gather the information,
verbal assignments, i.e. like written assignment but presenting them as a seminar or the like to the class,
(small percentage of mark for) few-hour-exams.

My questions are:

Each of the evaluation methods has its own pros and cons: Not all students can show that they have learned enough just in a few hours exam especially due to anxiety; and not all students do their assignment by themselves. Why do developed countries consider written assignments as a big percentage of marks that a student can get?
Are there universities follow the method of only written and verbal assignments and don't take exams at all, and those universities are high ranked and their degree despite their poor method of evaluation have a high validity? Which universities?

Note that this question are just purely about Science and Mathematics degrees on BSc and (especially) MSc levels.
Thank you.

I removed 3 because poll-type questions are out of scope of this site. See the [help/dont-ask].

Why do yo suppose that the deciding factor in how programs evaluate student is the economic development of the country? Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I don't think it is reasonable to make sweeping generalizations and judgement about how science programs in developed and developing nations assess their students. Instead, whether a course emphasizes exams or not depends on the nature of the subject and the level of mastery the students possess. For example, for a calculus class, it is very likely that you will be graded on your ability to do computational problems in an exam setting, and few independent projects or presentations will be required. However, in a graduate level seminar course in biology, for example, your daily discussion participation in the class will be more important, because the professors are more interested in your ability to think rather than memorization.

I wrote a generalization just based on my own personal experience from some countries and ask if it is true everywhere

No, you don't "ask if it is true everywhere" in the question. (It is not, by the way.)


text:
What are specific strategies to help someone who does not do well under pressure
Most of the time I do my work, any work, I always do it to perfection when not under pressure.
How do I deal with pressure especially now that I know I need to work under pressure to deliver this due to the high expectation?.
I want to hear from people who have Ph.D.'s in Applied Mathematics, what are the challenges and how is it, and what kept you going. I don't want to start then quit due to pressure?

If you're having severe issues with pressure but will not change course (away from math), I suggest you see a therapist and get in touch with campus disability services (I hate calling it that but I'm not sure what else to call it). Grad school isn't easy and you will be under constant time constraints, be they from courses or your advisor. Even the nicest advisor is going to have reasonably high expectations and time constraints (if they're doing their job right) to make sure you're actually progressing.

@mad jack I wanted  to know if they give pressure (a lot of pressure) since the expectations are high. While doing my major there was a lot of pressure but I managed and passed. I wanted to hear from people who've done it and how it is. Thanks

Okay thank you guys, I will surely be patient. I wanted to hear from people who've done it.

"I want to hear other people's experiences" is a fine forum post, but not suitable for a question and answer site (see the [help/dont-ask]). I've edited your post to focus on the specific, answerable question that I think matches your intent.

submit whats needed Do you really do it to perfection when not under pressure? This is to tell you that real perfection is hard to achieve. We all are trying. But, no one has really done it.

Not sure about the specific department about which you speak and in reality most departments and supervisors vary according to organisational policy and personal/relational differences. Having said that however, my understanding of the Ph.D.process is very different from undergrad studies for both the student and supervisor.
Optimally [and again this depends on egos etc.] your supervisor will encourage a collegial/peer based relationship with you whilst providing support and guidance which will diminish over time as you become more independent, assured and gain ownership over your work. In this scenario being timed should not be a factor.
However, this implies a sense of responsibility in your actions leading to academic/professional independence - and at least the potential for this has to be apparent to your supervisor and peers from the beginning of your tenure. In this respect, I would suggest the following:-

Approach your supervisor and discuss the issue in a  solution oriented manner. When doing this try to avoid an attitude of 'well this is just the way I am so suck it up';
Seek out intervention programs at your organization that might assist; things like time management courses, project planning, communication skills and if applicable anxiety management/boosting your confidence therapy/courses.

By being proactive about this issue you are setting boundaries with your peers which can provide breathing space for you thus allowing you to relax into the process and hopefully fulfill your responsibilities with respect to deadlines/time frames and expected output.
**However!**By doing this it is incumbent upon you to take responsibility for the above, find ways to manage what ever it is that causes you to feel as you do and perform as expected. Having a good contingency plan for when things stuff up would also be a good idea. As is being able to re-calibrate if you fall off the wagon so to speak. As they say the best way to deal with a mistake is to learn the lesson and move on. Try not to get embedded in the problem.
And lastly... hopefully not but you may need to acquire some negotiation and/or conflict resolution skills .... sometimes we come up against people who simply don't/wont/cant understand your position and try to impose their regulations/values/modality onto you...

Avoid such people if you can;
Negotiate 'normal interactions' with them carefully and in a non-reactive manner;
Seek advice immediately if they impose.

Hope this helps :-)

This sounds nice. I will surely take it into consideration. Thanks

You are most welcome, I wish you all the best


text:
PhD study for staff?
I've recently been offered a research contract in a UK University within a Mathematics and Statistics department. I've been trying to get into Mathematical research for a long time, but in the mean time to continue research, publish, and so on, and to pay the bills I've had to take research based academic jobs in a varied number of departments in a number of Universities from Engineering to Sociology ! My background is Computer Science, in which I have a PhD.
My question is: Is it likely that a UK University would permit staff to study a part-time PhD in a new field within the department, e.g. Mathematics. If so, would fees be wavered? Or would this not be allowed since I already have a PhD in Computer Science. I've had a rocky road to Maths, for one reason or another, and had to take jobs I sometimes felt divergent to where I really wanted to go, so it would be nice to "tidy up" the loose ends.

Is there a reason you want a Ph.D. in math beyond "tidying up loose ends"?  In terms of employment prospects, for example, I'm not sure that this credential would do anything for you that a CS Ph.D. plus research papers in mathematics (which you would presumably get from this new job) wouldn't do for you just as well.

I'm inclined to do a PhD in Maths purely because many Maths jobs require a PhD in maths. Maybe not having one might be a disadvantage for future job applications... I think as you say as soon as I get a (maths) publication record I will feel differently about another PhD.

If there is a gap in your knowledge, and there is a course being offered that is a good fit for you, you could either enroll in the course or audit the course.  One course per semester maximum, please, so that it is clear where your priorities are.
One PhD is enough.  Math and computer science are close enough.
Yes, your self-confidence will grow as you build up a publication record.
Congrats on getting the job!


text:
Found errors in draft of researcher's book. Is it acceptable to ask for a review of my statement of purpose if I contact him regarding the errors?
This researcher says something along the lines of "I welcome all contact regarding this book".

Unless this is someone you know already, I'd say that you probably shouldn't ask. He's not offering unsolicited advice to all comers. You can either give him your feedback on his book or not, but I wouldn't tie the two things together.

Oh no.  The operative phrase is "regarding this book."  You should ask for help with your statement from 1) your academic advisor, 2) a teacher you feel comfortable with, 3) a colleague who's gone through the process, 4) a friend who's an excellent writer, and so on.
Hitting this researcher up for advice is taking advantage of the situation.


text:
Age limit for research position or postdoc in pure mathematics?
I have read the questions in this website regarding age and PhD. But I couldn't find on age limit for specifically for pure mathematics and for an academic career (research position / postdoc / ...).
My questions is that I am 35 now and I am going to finish PhD in age 39-40; even if I would have good published papers by age 40, wouldn't that age be too old for research position or postdoc? I stress on the word pure mathematics because employers (universities, ...) are looking for young minds in hope of better research (and high creativity).
Thanks a lot in advance for your help.

If your work shows that you are creative and productive, I would not expect a problem.

In many countries, it would be illegal for an employer to set an explicit age limit for a job.

@NateEldredge - well, there is a problem with that: I will never know whether the reason of being rejected by the selection committee were for my age. Even if some write reason(s) for not accepting someone, they can write vaguely 'they were some others with better achievements' and it's not possible for applicant(s) to know inside of the committee. What if there's no evidence of against legal?

Yes, I understand that it is possible that there could be bias against older applicants.  But I wanted to point out that you will not, in the countries where it's illegal, find an explicit age limit.

When my department evaluates postdoc applications, the age of the candidate doesn't matter; I don't think it's even on the application form (on MathJobs), though I confess to rarely paying attention to all the stuff on the form (I've developed reflexes for focusing on the important parts).  What is relevant, though, is how long the person has had the Ph.D.  Some of our postdoc positions are limited to people who got their Ph.D. within the preceding two years.

I don't think it's even on the application form — Right. Because it's illegal to ask.

@JeffE - One may never be asked for his/her age but in the interview or while being asked for some documents (which may also include DOB), the committee may decide to choose a younger while the older applicants may never know why they weren't be accepted (because they don't have access to all applicants CVs, etc.).

Yes, but that's true even if the younger person has a dozen Annals papers and you only have one. By the time you get to an interview, either the quality of your actual research matters far more than anything else, or you really don't want to work there.

In summary, it's time since PhD that matters (and some postdoc adverts include an explicit limit like 5 years), and that you've done good work.

As mentioned in the comments, the answer is that there are typically no age limits.  What postdoc positions occasionally limit (e.g., NSF postdocs) is the number of years since you've gotten your PhD, and there is often a preference to hiring recents PhD, which is what we mean typically mean by "young mathematicians."  (We usually look at dates of degrees rather than age specifically when reviewing applications.)
Many mathematicians started off in other fields first, and there are quite a number of successful mathematicians who have gotten their PhDs in their 30s-40s.  See this MO question for examples.  Also, here is a related MSE question.
To be honest, I haven't seen enough examples personally from the hiring perspective to know whether there is some bias against age in hiring postdocs or not--I imagine there is at some point, e.g. at 60 or 70, people may not think it's worth training someone who may not have any good years left and such a candidate would need to have done something truly amazing to be competitive.  But at 40, this is not as big of an issue as it might have been in the past--many mathematicians nowadays do great work after 40 (including people on the MO list above) and are recognized as such.  This is corroborated by the fact that research universities regularly hire professors who in their 40s and 50s (though it is rare to hire someone to do research someone who is already in their late 50s or 60s).  So, I wouldn't worry too much about a bias against your age.


text:
How should I interpret the result of AMS annual survey
I'm going to be a first year graduate student in mathematics and is thinking about which field to specialized in. Besides the important factors such as potential advisor I can find, personal interest, and my background knowledge I want to know the academic job prospective after graduation.
I take a look at recent AMS survey, for example,
AMS survey 2012-2013, and for each field of thesis I sum the number of first 8 row("Math Public Large" to "Biostatistics") and divide the number by "Total" to estimate the chance of random Ph.D. in that field get an academic postdoc(in US). I'm slightly worry about the fields I'm interested in have relatively low ratio on this.
My question is, do I interpret the data correctly? If so, how much weight should I put into these data when determining field of specialization? If not, what should I look for?

Academic job prospects are an important consideration, but the AMS survey results are too coarse-grained for that.  They average together people from very different circumstances, which means they aren't representative of any individual job applicant.  Some people have much better chances that one would guess from these numbers, while others have much worse chances.
Instead, I'd recommend estimating your chances based on your advisor's previous students and others who have graduated recently from your department.  These are both much more highly correlated with your own chances than your broad subfield is.  You could view the subfield as a lower-order correction factor, but I'm not convinced it really matters (I'd bet it disappears in the noise).  I'd also recommend having a detailed discussion with your advisor about the job market and how to position yourself to do well.
Aside from averaging together students at many different sorts of departments, the field-based numbers conflate several issues: how many people were forced to take a nonacademic job unwillingly, how many people chose one over academic offers, and how many people never particularly wanted to work in academia in the first place.  These are all correlated with the field, sometimes obviously (e.g., statistics) and sometimes less so.  For example, my impression is that some fields are more likely to attract unambitious students who aren't really on track for academic jobs.  I don't have any statistical evidence for this, but I think such students are more likely to choose algebra than geometry, say, because they probably took an algebra course but not a geometry course in their undergraduate studies.  If you aren't one of these students, then their existence says nothing about your chances.
In any case, the take-home message is that it's difficult or impossible to extract useful predictions for your own case from this data.


text:
How to cite a complex web-based resource?
I want to cite the IUPAC Compendium of of Chemical Terminology - Gold Book in ACS reference style (American Chemical Society). This resource is not just a web page and the ACS reference guide doesn't provide a style for this kind of web resource. On the other hand, the IUPAC Gold book provides a citation style under "Cite as" on individual pages.
What should I do? Cite as is given under "Cite as" or cite it as a single web page?

Do you use the resource solely as a web page, and not as a PDF/printed document? If so, then it is just a web page.

If a resource tells you how it wants to be cited, cite it that way.


text:
How to cope with lab noise?
I have searched a lot and I am surprised that this topic hasn't been discussed yet. I am an M.Sc. Student in Computer Science. Our lab is actually a dry lab in which we need to do a lot of reading of heavy maths on a daily basis.
The problem is that some people (mostly senior students such as PhD candidates) sometimes speak loudly to discuss their new papers with lab mates, etc., which is totally a must-do activity but disrupts my mind and obviously some others that are not involved in their discussion.
I have tried many ways such as music, white noise, natural sound, etc., but all of them had drawbacks that forced me to abandon them.
I even think of studying in the library sometimes, but I think it is not a good idea because it may make me isolated and also it may cause people to think that I am not working as expected. I also don't like the idea of speaking with the Prof. about this, because: first, the prof himself doesn't pay attention to speak low in the lab and I think this would be strange to him and second, I am so new and it may harm me.
What I want to know is: is this situation actually normal? And if not, how can I cope with that?

This was my answer (although they did the best job at cancelling that loud ventilation we had, speech is trickier): http://worldwide.bose.com/productsupport/en_us/web/qc15/page.html

I always found the hiss from noise-cancelling headphones to be nearly as aggravating as whatever sound I was blocking. Good in-ear phones without noise cancellation for me do an adequate job blocking voices without the hiss. (I use Shure SE-series 'phones).

Check out the Workplace for some similar questions, here and here. We have a number of questions about how to handle office noise.

Would it be feasible to put up a big and prominent sign which says "Please be mindful of other people doing work/research. Thank you." If not then the sign should read "Silence is golden; please Shut The Front Up." :-)

@MonkeyZeus That would only be feasible if you want to look like a total asshat. Sorry.

See also answers over on the Workplace area. As others have said, this kind of issue is universal to one degree or another in any environment, work, home, or other.

Wear a pair of ear muffs, like those used by jackhammer operators or construction workers. Some models can almost be mistaken for big earphones on superficial scrutiny, but are very effective at dampening external sounds. You may look weird, though! :-)

Do yo have access to a break or seminar room? Those chatting or collaborating could go there.

@ThePhoton what hiss? I find I have to blast music in my ears with regular insert phones to cover the voice of other people. With the noise cancellation, I can put the music very soft, or even no music at all.

@CapeCode my cheap noise cancelling earphone definitely hiss with no music on.  My better headphones don't, at least to my ears (as over-ear headphones they're also much better at blocking noise.  They're only sony MDR-NC7s (~£30 but discontinued).

Combined with noise-cancelling headphones it may be suitable to gently suggest a way of moving you and the conversations apart -- even just not talking at the next desk to the one you're using will make a big difference combined with the headphones.

@ChrisH oh I see. I've never tried NC earphones, only headphones. Admittedly the Bose QC are pricey....

I use focus@will. They provide music that is optimized to cancel out ambient noise, and help you focus. It's not free, but it works very well for me.

@DavidRicherby My apologies if you misunderstood my comment but the sign for "Please be mindful..." could be placed by faculty on the entrance to the lab or on a wall within the lab. I was not implying that CodeInNetwork should have their own personal sign which they carry in their bag. The second suggestion was pure humor.

@MonkeyZeus Communication by signs is impersonal and unpleasant. You use signs where it's infeasible to talk to everybody who needs to know the message (e.g., "No parking"). An office with signs instructing people how to behave would be a very unpleasant place to work and suggests severe communication problems.

@DavidRicherby I must be misunderstanding terminology. CoderInNetwork mentions that this is a lab setting; not office. I am sure that CoderInNetwork is not the first nor last person to have this issue so a sign actually does sound appropriate in accordance with your "No Parking" example.

@ThePhoton I use QuietComfort 15s and while they do have a slight hiss, I find it fades into the background very quickly when I notice it at all. The bigger issue is that my ears will start hurting after wearing them for an extended period of time, presumably because the noise cancellation is imperfect and applies too much (variable?) pressure on the ear canal/eardrum.

@MonkeyZeus The asker refers to doing mathematical research. In such cases, "lab" is just a synonym for "office". In any case, to me, it sounds much more like a room that the same group of people work in all the time, each with their own seat, than a room where whoever needs to use the space drops in for a while.

@DavidRicherby Very interesting. CoderInNetwork, could you clarify please?

for clarification, actually @DavidRicherby had a good description of the place I am doing research in that.

@CapeCode, nobody said anything about "regular" phones. The good ones, like from Shure, are not at all the same.

Is this situation actually normal?

Yup, pretty normal. It's what is called "office life".
I am almost tempted to vote to close this as a boat programming question, as it is really no different to any other "we-are-in-a-shared-office-but-my-office-mates-annoy-me" situation in any job. Anyway, I think this is common enough in academia that it may make sense to answer here.
Essentially, there are really only three ways to fix this:

Change the office layout. Either get smaller offices (very unlikely to be possible), or re-arrange the PhD student seating so that the quiet workers share offices as well as the enthusiastic discussers. Of course, if you have one big lab for all students, this solution is probably a no-starter (not common here in Europe, but I have learned that this is common in the US).
Home office. Probably the easiest, most immediate, and most common solution to the problem of the annoying other students is to spend more time working from home or another suitable location, especially if some high-concentration tasks are in the queue. Of course this requires a modicum of trust that PhD students that are not in the lab are actually still working, and not sleeping or using their XBox. Given your concern that you may appear as "not working enough" when you are not in the lab, this may indeed be a problem.
Noise cancellation. When we had this problem in our lab, the easiest fix was to buy a set of high-quality noise cancellation headphones from Bose. The ones we bought are massive enough that even just wearing them alone without any music already blocks out a lot of the regular room acoustics, and they are high-quality enough that you can wear them for hours without pain. Students that want to work now wear their noise cancellation gear, which incidentally also is a good "Do not disturb unless important" sign for other people that just want to chat.

I should mention that "talk to the other students and make them stop" isn't really a practical and permanent solution. There are just too many people with too many differing characters for too many hours a day in a typical PhD student office - if somebody is the chatty type, she or he will chat.
Btw., I feel for you. My productivity when I am alone in my office is twice of what it is when we are two persons, which is again twice of what it is when we are three. I was never in an office with more than three persons, but I presume I wouldn't even need to bother coming in. This Dilbert comic strip is representing my feelings regarding the current trend of "open floor plan offices" pretty well.

If one wants to go the noise cancellation route without wearing hot, heavy headphones, in-ear monitors are another way to go. Just web search in-ear monitors and you'll find a plethora of products. You do have to plug them into something and pipe in some quiet music or white noise to really block out all the sound, but they work wonders for me in my noisy office.

@Todd: Does wearing noise cancellation headphone or earphone do hard to ears/hearting?

@Tim only if you play loud music through them.

@Tim I'd like to add that noise cancellation is not able to cancel human speech because it changes frequencies and amplitude too fast. There is currently no algorithm to cleanly isolate or cancel human speech, and if it was, there is no technology to apply it in realtime. Noise cancellation decreases noise, adds a bit of a low hiss, and may feel as if it adds a little air pressure, but this shouldn't hurt your ears in any way. If you choose ear plugs instead earphones, it may lead to irritation of the ear channel, earwax compaction, or pressure equalisation issues when removed incorrectly.

@Jano True, although subjectively it does seem to me that constant lab background chatter is filtered to some extend.

I sympathize with your situation---though at least the problem is only people!  At one point when I was a graduate student, there was a building under construction right next to the lab, the noise was continuous for many months.  The worst was the weeks when they were setting the foundation with pile-drivers and every few seconds a loud metallic "Ping!" would go right through your bones and make the building vibrate.  The only thing to do to get focus was to abandon the building and work elsewhere.
Which is the same thing that I would suggest to you to do in your situation.  Find a good quiet place where you can be highly productive (maybe the library, maybe somewhere else---there are usually lots of good hidey-holes around a campus) and use it strategically.  If it were one or two people, then you might think of talking with them, but it sounds like the group has an established culture of interaction, and it's appropriate for you to adjust your behavior to work with that culture, rather than asking the whole rest of the group to cater to your needs.  It would be different if there were bigger issues involved (e.g., a culture of offensive jokes), but this is just a value-neutral matter of preferred working style.
That then leaves the question of how to maintain connection and visibility.  First of all, it's probably important that you spend only a minority of your time away in your quiet place.  If you're there all the time, you most certainly will become isolated from your group, and will miss out on all of the benefits of interaction.  As a relatively new graduate student, you may think you should spend all of your time reading, but that it very unlikely to be the case.
I think that you should have a conversation with your professor---not to ask for anything to change, but just to say that you intend to spend occasional time away from the lab doing your reading for better focus, and to express the same concern that you have expressed here, with making sure that this does not lead to bad impressions or less connection.  Your professor may tell you not to worry, or may have suggestions for you.  You can also use active means of communicating your location to lab-mates, e.g., putting a note at your desk to tell people where you are and making sure that you are available electronically (e.g., via IM) if somebody wants to find you.  Finally, make sure that you do participate in laboratory informal social culture when you aren't trying to focus, e.g., eating lunch with people, joining some of those research conversations, etc.
In short: figure out what actions you need to do to be productive, then make sure you communicate actively with both your professor and labmates in order to keep those actions from interfering with other aspects of your participation in the lab.

This is actually a pretty common problem for many people. The problem is that it is very difficult and possibly unadvised to try and change the behaviour/culture of the lab you are in, especially if you are the only getting annoyed by the talking. I would recommend that you ask the other people to try and speak a little bit softer, but if this does not work then I would not advise you to bring it up with the lab advisor / the other people much because it will create the impression that you are (a nag/annoying/hard to please).
I would personally use headphones or the like, but you said that there was a problem, so I guess you would know best.
If you are not actively participating in the discussions that are taking place, I would recommend that you go to study in the library instead if that is better for you. If you wish, you can tell your lab advisor that you are having some issues concentrating in the lab due to noise and that you will be available in the library. However, I would still show up to lab as often as before, though maybe not stay there as long before finding a more quiet place to study.

Earplugs are the best solution, you can buy earplugs that will damp the noise levels by 40 dB, the problem you then have is that you may not hear a phone ringing or an alarm go off. But, of course, you can then use earplugs with a lower noise damping level.

+1 for earplugs. A pack of foam noise protection earplugs with strings from the hardware store is cheaper than buying foam earplugs from the pharmacy, and they work even better.

Where did you find 40 dB earplugs? The highest I've ever found topped out in the mid 30's.

What you have experienced may be at least related to Misophonia, a rarely diagnosed but common auditory discomfort caused by irritating or distracting sounds. One of the only ways I have found to combat it in an office environment is to wear rubber in-ear headphones, and put some very familiar, repetitive music on.

Often, people aren't aware of how much noise they're making. Have a chat with the people who have the loud conversations and ask them if they could try to be a little quieter when they're talking. Don't interrupt one of their conversations because then it sounds like you're telling them to shut up. Just something short and simple like, "Hey, John. When you and Jane are talking about work, I find it kinda hard to concentrate. Could you try to be a little quieter?"
You'll probably find it gets quieter for a bit but gradually ramps up again.

This is a short term solution. It's not manageable to keep doing this if he doesn't hold a higher status than the rest of the room.

@Mast What does status have to do with it? "Oh, I'll ignore you because you're just a master's student. But if Bob the postdoc told me, I'd sit in silence forever"?

You don't have to agree, but I've often encountered students in the end phase of their studies have a higher natural authority in such situations then fresh students.

@Mast In my experience, people who have shared goals (e.g., getting lots of research done) tend to at least try to co-operate with reasonable requests from other members of the group, regardless of status.

There are many definitions of reasonable and many methods of getting lots of research done. One prefers a quiet area, another feels uncomfortable in silence and prefers sound but refuses to wear headphones or starts talking more/louder. The point that it's a short term solution still stands, unless you're in a small group with always the same people (in case they could remember).

@Mast I'm assuming the situation is a lab with a more or less fixed population, rather than a space where people come and go as they please. So, yes, it's entirely plausible to ask a couple of times and expect people to remember. And, frankly, anyone who finds a request to talk a little quieter to be anything less than reasonable is a sociopath. Nobody's asking for silence.

I agree it's unreasonable to balk at such requests. I'm just stating my experience.

My solution as a PhD student was to work in the departmental reading room which was conveniently next to the common room. When I wanted to be social, I went next door, when I didn't I got on with work. If people talk in the library you are entitled to remind them where they are and get them to shut up.

The problem with noise-canceling headphones is that they can only produce inverse sound waves for repetitive audio patterns--they don't block human conversation at all.
I tried a half-dozen high-end noise-isolating headphones a few years ago and found them to be uncomfortable and no better (actually worse, in most cases) at isolating noise than inexpensive shooting earmuffs.
After much experimentation, I found that doubling up was the only thing that even remotely worked.  Foam earplugs+earmuffs work fairly well, but still aren't perfect. Earplugs+circumaural closed-back headphones, or noise-isolating in-ear headphones+earmuffs work great. You can turn up the headphones or earmuffs sound just barely enough to ear it, and that's usually enough to drown out any sound not attenuated by the double sound isolation.
When I have to use music to quietly out the extra little bit of noise, I always opt for something with no vocals. Classical and instrumental jazz are okay, but video game music works great.

This is very normal situation. I would say that you're on the right track by, where possible, seeking non-confrontational strategies. There are of course advantages in sharing office space and indeed you might soon come across a situation where you'd like to have an open-office discussion about a certain topic or problem. These kinds of discussion have been advantageous to me throughout my time in shared research office spaces and make good use of the intellectual capital sitting within a paper plane's throw of your desk.

I even think of studying in the library sometimes, but I think it is
  not a good idea because it may make me isolated and also it may cause
  people to think that I am not working as expected.

Personally I quite regularly make use of the silent study space in the library (through my PhD and now as research staff). I don't feel isolated and I'm free from interruptions there. You ought only to worry about your supervisor's opinion on whether you are working as expected.

Complain again and again to the people in charge and let them know that a better arrangement would be in their own interest.
Hundreds of studies have shown that open office spaces decrease productivity, increase sick time, and interestingly also decrease teamwork. Working with someone now bothers everyone else in the room, so is discouraged. People also tend to hide or work frome home.
Of course, this won't change anything alone, but if everyone complains, things might change.
Don't just be an unimportant cog happy to work his ass off for nothing in a laying battery. At least complain. And always remember, you can make twice as much in industry and have better working conditions.

So, you mean industry companies don't use open office spaces much?

Some do, some don't. I have worked on and off in industrial and academic research, and never have I seen workspaces as miserable and unsafe as in universities. Academia can get away with it because young people are gullible so that they can exploit their idealism. If companies have cubes, typically management sits there as well. Faculty would never do that. If we in the chemical industry had as many accidents as universities, we would be shut down.