text:
How can I seek permanent Personalised Assessment Arrangements, rather than reapplying each year?
I'm severely disabled. Under Outcomes and length of arrangements:

If your condition is long-term and unchanging, the Personalised Assessment [henceforth PA] Arrangements Committee (PAAC) will approve arrangements for the duration of your programme, meaning you do not need to reapply each year.

Under 3) International student:

You can apply to sit your examination at an alternative venue [henceforth AV] if you are either:
a)      Taking a resit and/or replacement examination and you are a non-attending student. You can only apply to sit in your home country.
OR
b)      Taking a resit and/or replacement examination and you are applying to take the examination during the August exam period. You can only apply to sit in your home country.

I asked King's College London (KCL)'s Exam Services why AV can't be approved permanently (for the duration of my degree), like PA. But the Head regurgitated without explanation that this is possible only for PA, before harshly alleging that this matter was closed.
How can I challenge them? Can the Equality Act 2010 help?
Additional Argument, in addition to inability to live alone long-term.
Requiring me to reapply each year throws my life into uncertainty, thwarts me from planning how long to rent my apartment, and and forces me to rent for longer than needed. How?
Option 1: I lease until June, as I wouldn't know if AV'd be approved this year when I sign a lease. But if I learn that I'm approved for AV no earlier than Jan. or Feb., then lease payments from Mar.-Jun. would be wasted as I'd fly home.
Option 2: I lease until Mar. 2019. But the risk is lacking residence in London, if my AV is denied and I need to write exams in London in June.

Not familiar with British law, but I suspect that schools in many cases want to establish the need for and use of arrangements before going through the process of setting up accommodations on a permanent basis. It might be easier to get a first PAA, and then request a permanent extension of the original.

I feel completely at sea on this, being so completely unfamiliar with procedures in the UK.  But in general, there are several approaches to getting the accommodations one needs: (1) gradually work your way up the chain of command with informal conversations with administrators.  This may require building positive relationships with various assistants and secretaries.  Keep a log. (2) study the published procedural documents (both at the institution and from the government).  Write letters (emails, really), pointing out what appears to be required, and asking how the problem can be resolved...

Keep a paper trail of your communications.  Note that even while you're doing (2), it's also possible to season your main dish with a bit of (1).  If the published procedural documents are not complete (for example if there are no instructions for how to file an appeal), then ask what procedure you should follow. (3) Hire a lawyer to do the whole thing for you.  (4) Find an advocacy organization that will support your self-advocacy, with knowledge, moral support, free legal advice, etc. (5) Hire a lawyer for maximum one hour's work, advising you about next steps that you can take for yourself.

Sometimes this option involves the lawyer advising you on a tactical move or ghostwriting a letter for you.  If you try the ghostwriting option, edit the draft so that it reflects your own writing style. (7) Find allies, such as a calm, well spoken student who's a good listener and a good note-taker to buddy with you to attend all your meetings with you, whether planned or unplanned. Another important type of ally could be a professor. Note, in general it is extremely helpful to have a medical provider backing up what you are saying, not just by writing a strong letter and letting you ...

suggest edits before finalizing, but also speaking out strongly on your behalf with school personnel. // I recommend leaving out the financial part of your story when advocating for the permanent PAA.  Instead, stress (a) the better care in the alternate location, and (b) how important the peace of mind would be for you.  (I suggest leaving that a bit vague.)  Reason: I'm not sure the UK laws that protect you are designed to protect you from having to pay extra rent. // Finally, don't hesitate to try to negotiate with the landlord, explaining the situation.

Pam Wright has an approach she calls "the letter to a stranger."  Start each letter to each new bureaucrat you try to get to help you, with something that will help the reader identify with you.  Not more than two or three paragraphs.  Keep the tone of the letter quite neutral.  Say that you are asking for his/her help.  Explain the background, the problem, and your proposed solution, step by step, with very clear English.  Remember that the reader doesn't know you.  The letter to the stranger gives you the chance to stimulate identification and a desire to help you.

I wouldn't say "soothe."  I would say that without the permanent approval, you would have to plan for possible non-approval, and this would create a hardship for you.  They I would bullet several ways it would be a hardship: financial, psychological (because you would feel discriminated against and unsupported by your university), and academically (because it would take a great deal of energy to relocate -- or something like that).

I think I made some progress.  I found https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/what-you-can-do which has instructions for filing a complaint and contact information.  I encourage you to give it a try, as an ordinary citizen without legal representation.  I have filed complaints in an analogous way on behalf of my son with Tourette Syndrome in the US.  I wouldn't say they were wildly successful -- the process has been painfully slow -- but perhaps in the UK it will be quicker; and my complaints are starting to result in some changes for the better. Also, I've learned a lot in the process.

@aparente001 Thanks so much! Let me look at this website and return to you later.

A quick review of the link you've shown suggests that the two classes you've listed, personalized assessment and alternative venue, are open to two completely different groups:

Personalized assessment is for students with recognized learning or physical disabilities;
Alternative venue is for international students.

You're effectively trying to conflate the two types of accommodations, by requesting an alternative venue as a means of handling your disability. Based on the response of the chair of the committee, they are proceeding according to this distinction. For this to be successful, you need to be able to explain medically why you need to be at home for the exam period. Raising financial costs as a reason will not be a sufficient reason—by that rationale, you're no different from any other applicant wanting an alternative venue.

"For this to be successful, you need to be able to explain medically why you need to be at home for the exam period." I've done so. They accept my severe medical disability. The financial risks are a secondary argument.

The issue is that the kind of accommodation you’re requesting is based on where you live. What if that situation changed? Testing time changes or an assistant is not a change that would need to be revisited, but living arrangements are. That’s probably why they don’t want to give a permanent change in venue.

Let's see if I've understood.  At your institution, the exam occurs several months after the semester ends.  You would like to vacate your London apartment when classes end, and then take your exam at an Alternate Venue because keeping the apartment for the extra months would involve extra expense, which I am guessing is more expensive than housing would cost for non-disabled students, and because with your significant disability you can't just pop into London for the day to take your exam as non-disabled students can (you'd need to get established in London several days before the exam in order to stabilize your condition before taking the exam), and therefore taking the exam in London would involve significant extra expense for you.  So you are requesting permission to take your exam at an alternate venue, as several classes of students, including international students, are permitted to do.  Did I get that right?
I found the text of the Equality Act 2010. I confess I found it hard to read.
However, I found guidance designed to be read by education administrators, which was easier to read and generally more helpful for me.  Here are some quotes.  (I've done some simplifying and bolding.)

The object of the reasonable adjustments duty is to avoid as far as possible by reasonable means the disadvantage which a disabled student experiences because of their disability.
The duty requires you to take positive steps to ensure that disabled students can fully participate in the education and other benefits, facilities and services provided for students....
Where a practice places disabled students at a substantial disadvantage in accessing education, the higher education institution must take such steps as it is reasonable to take in all the circumstances to ensure the provision, criterion or practice no longer has such an effect. This might mean waiving a criterion or abandoning a practice altogether but often will involve just an extension of the flexibility and individual approach that most institutions already show to their students....
Where disabled students are placed at a substantial disadvantage by a provision, criterion or practice, the absence of an auxiliary aid or a physical feature, the institution must consider whether any reasonable adjustment can be made to overcome that disadvantage.
Institutions should not expect disabled students to suggest adjustments but where they do, institutions should consider whether they would help to overcome the disadvantage and whether they are reasonable. It is good practice for further and higher education institutions to work with students in determining what reasonable adjustments can be made....
What is the reasonable adjustments duty?
You are required to take reasonable steps to:
Avoid substantial disadvantage where a provision, criterion or practice puts disabled students at a substantial disadvantage.
Avoid substantial disadvantage, where a physical feature puts disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage; this includes removing the physical feature in question, altering it or providing a reasonable means of avoiding it....
What is a substantial disadvantage?
A disadvantage that is more than minor or trivial is called a
‘substantial disadvantage’. The level of disadvantage created by a
lack of reasonable adjustments is measured in comparison with what the
position would be if the disabled student in question did not have a
disability.
A further or higher education institution will need to take into
account a number of factors when considering what a substantial
disadvantage might be, such as:

the time and effort that might need to be expended by a disabled
student

the inconvenience, indignity or discomfort a disabled student
might suffer

the loss of opportunity or the diminished progress a
disabled student might make in comparison with his or her peers who
are not disabled.

For Example:
A sixth form college has several sites and students are required to
move between sites to attend different classes. This is likely to
place a student with mobility difficulties at a substantial
disadvantage as they may find it hard to move between sites and arrive
late for classes as a result. This is likely to be a substantial
disadvantage.

We can see at PERSONALISED ASSESSMENT ARRANGEMENTS: Alternative Venue Arrangements that KCL does allow exams to be taken at alternative venues by distance learning students, study abroad students, and international students, so perhaps you could make an argument that your institution already shows this flexibility to its students.
Another helpful document says

Factors to take into account
The following are some of the factors which might be taken into
account when considering what is reasonable:
• whether taking any particular steps would be effective in overcoming
the substantial disadvantage that disabled people face in accessing
the education or other benefit, facility or service in question
• the extent to which it is practicable for the education provider to
take such steps
• the type of education or other benefit, facility or service being
provided
• the effect of the disability on the individual
• the financial and other costs of making the adjustment
• the availability of grants, loans and other assistance to disabled
students
• the extent to which aids and services will otherwise be provided to
disabled people or students
• the resources of the education provider and the availability of
financial or other assistance
• health and safety requirements, and
• the relevant interests of other people, including other students

I also found a definition of indirect discrimination:

putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage.  (https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights)

Note, in the US, the government guidance in this area explains that the published examples of reasonable accommodations (I think this is the same as the UK term reasonable adjustments) are not an exhaustive list.  Educational institutions are supposed to consider what the student needs, not just what has previously been offered to students with a disability.  The text I found seems similar enough to the US materials that I think it would be reasonable to extrapolate this to the UK.
I think there should be an appeals procedure at each university:

If the matter cannot be resolved through your internal complaints procedure, then there are various mediation and conciliation services that might assist you in resolving the dispute.

This paragraph suggests to me that there should be an internal complaint procedure at KCL.  (It parallels what is required in the US under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.)
On that same page, it says

in England or Wales, a student can make a complaint that the university has discriminated against them to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA). The student will usually have to have exhausted the internal complaints procedure.

I googled for Office of the Independent Adjudicator King's College and found three levels of appeal and deadlines for each.  It looks to me like starting at level 2 might make the most sense.
If you haven't contacted these people, it might be worth a try:

Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) Helpline
Information and advice about discrimination and human rights issues
Telephone: 0808 800 0082
Monday to Friday, 9am to 7pm
Saturday, 10am to 2pm

I hope you'll keep us posted -- by writing updates at the bottom of your question.

The system with that big gap between end of semester and exam date makes no sense to me!

I've never heard of anywhere that does have that big a gap. In the UK. It sounds like OP plans to skip revision lectures. I can't see anything yet that explains why they need different treatment to everyone else, who are expected to stick around until the end of the academic year.

@JessicaB - Perhaps it has to do with paying caregivers or with life in London being harder on the body and mind.  I don't know, but if OP wants to advocate for the reasonable adjustment, obviously documentation would have to be submitted.  I'm not in the position of evaluating the request -- my part was attempting to trace through the labyrinth of how the system works and the terminology.  I just wish someone with direct personal experience would post an answer.  I only have 504 experience (US) and every country is different.

I think I got it.  My guess is that most students leave London when classes are out, and then travel briefly back for exam(s).  I think the hardship may be that traveling is much more challenging.

None of my many classmates who studied in London have ever suggested that the pattern is any different to that of all the other universities in the UK, where exams take place shortly after the end of teaching. Until exams are over, you are expected to be at the university. The only time you 'travel back' for exams is if you need to sit them during the resit period at the end of the summer.

@JessicaB - Trying to talk about academic calendars in the UK, I feel like a fish out of water but I just googled KCL's academic calendar (https://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/Academic-Calendar/index.aspx#Top) and found something. Teaching: Friday 12 January – Thursday 29 March 2018; Teaching/Revision: Monday 23 April – Friday 27 April 2018; Exam Period 2: Monday 30 April – Friday 1 June 2018.  I have no idea how to interpret this. // Sometimes something that appears perfectly obvious to me as the parent of a child with a disability is inexplicably not obvious to others.  To some extent it is...

... a good idea for us to try to understand OP's situation, to address the question better, but SE isn't the deciding body, and SE isn't the advocate helping OP line his or her ducks in a row in preparation for an appeal.

@aparente001 Thanks a lot for all your feedback! Your factual outline is wholly right. I suggested an edit that will clarify this. KCL "students leave London when classes are out, and then travel briefly back for exam(s)." Bingo!

@JessicaB aparente001 is wholly right. My severe disability hinders living alone.

@athlon you travel back briefly for exams? Why? According to that calendar you are still in lectures until 3 days before exams start. An alternative venue is arranged if you need to resit an exam, which would happen in August. Normal exams will be done by the 1st of June. Are you wanting an AV because you think you will fail and need to resit?

@athlon - I rejected your suggested edit because I'd rather keep our voices separate (question author, answer author).  Better to write an update to the question (which would appear inside the question, at the bottom, starting with the word "Edit" or "Update"), or a comment.

I would be very interested to know what sort of advice you get from the Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) Helpline.  It would be interesting to know whether they provide useful, practical guidance.

@astronat - Calendar appears to be as follows (see my earlier comment for link): Teaching: Friday 12 January – Thursday 29 March 2018; Teaching/Revision: Monday 23 April – Friday 27 April 2018; Exam Period 2: Monday 30 April – Friday 1 June 2018. I guess a lot depends on OP's specific exam dates.


text:
Should I go for a PhD in Oxford University?
I recently got accepted into a PhD program at the University of Oxford after passing many admission stages including a very rigorous interview.
I've always been a good academic, and I do have a promising startup making around 10,000$ a month. I've got funding for my PhD as well; money is not the problem.
However, after thinking a lot of about it, I hate academia, and I do never want to be a researcher. I do not want to be a tenured professor or be in an academic environment in any way, nor I want to make future publications.
If I go for a PhD, I do know what I am signing up for; I searched for months on what a PhD sounds like. The countless hours of work, the supervision, the isolation, thesis work, wanting to quit and everything else.
I am passionate about my PhD topic, and I think I can contribute to that field using projects and research.
If I go there, it would be something I am deeply passionate about.
Furthermore, the main reason why I want to go there is that it is 'Oxford' and I get a permanent legacy being an Oxbridge graduate, as well as holding a doctorate degree for the rest of my life.
My parents are supportive and aren't pushing me to do it. They told me to do what I want.
Academia took over my life since I was 18 and wasting another 4-years for that means I finish 27 where most of my 20s would be wasted for academia.
I've asked my academic advisor, and he told me rejecting an offer from Oxford might be a mistake I would regret for the rest of my life.
Should I go for PhD in Oxford or not? I have a non-ending dilemma.

Would going to grad school disrupt your startup's development?

If you weren't going to attend, why did you apply in the first place?

You shouldn't, as you aren't motivated to do it, and the admissions people failed to see this... incredible. Why did you even apply when you "hate academia, and never want to be a researcher"? Doing a PhD is essentially training in research.

Quite a dichotomy in here.

So your main motivation is to have a degree you don’t use and don’t value much, and do a work that you hate but passionate about... in other word, you would like to spend 4-5 years on a vanity project, and you need encouragement from us.. ?

@Anonymous Chicken: you say you asked your advisor. It is not clear whether you have started your studies already and thinking to quit after you already started? If yes, this depends on how much you have passed already? the grades/progress reports. If your reports are positive, you have crossed a mile, you are passionate about your Phd. , the answer will be different than otherwise. IMHO, Phd. is about a supervisor not a university especially if you want to pursue academia. It really depends on what alternatives you have.

It sounds from your last comment as though you're afraid of the writing part.  That happens to a lot of people but most of them get through it.  Note, writing gets easier with practice.

@AnonymousChicken Passionate about a topic but hate to spend time on serious work, writing up, do the legwork etc ... yes, know the difference very well

If you will think of time spent on the PhD as time wasted, don't do it.
However, in considering the pros and cons, do remember that PhD students who are having problems are much more visible than the ones who are enjoying the experience.
Supervision should be a benefit, not a downside. I remember some very interesting conversations with my academic advisor.
People working excessive hours, other than for short periods during emergencies, are less productive than those who are getting enough sleep, exercise, and social life.
If you experience isolation, you are doing it wrong. A PhD is a time to network with other researchers in your chosen field, including but not limited to fellow graduate students.
Writing your thesis may be the one time in your life in which you can write about your research area without limiting yourself to a few pages. Why would "thesis work" be a negative?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is abandoning my PhD degree better for my career path?
It is a known fact that reputation and lineage are a very important factor in academia. Master students need recommendation letters to get a PhD opportunity and the same for PhD students looking for a postdoc position. If a PhD supervisor knows someone in another institute or a company, he can very easily help his student get a postdoc or a good job in the industry. If your supervisors are prestigious in the community, you can start your career much more easily than your peers. Conversely, a mediocre PhD supervisor may become an obstacle for his talented student.
I am a PhD student in CS, and I am at the final stage of my PhD. However, I wonder whether it is better to abandon my PhD degree because of the mediocrity of my supervisors. Since a thesis will be stored in a database; once deposited, the PhD student's name will be permanently bound to his supervisors, and if the public perception of my supervisors is low, I'm concerned that I may have difficulty building my own brand.
To address my concern, I would like to know which of the following states is likely to make it harder to become a leading scientist?

having a PhD from mediocre supervisors in a mediocre lab, or
not having a PhD, and building one's name from scratch?

For me this is a typical example of a "PhD stress". Sleep over it a night, take a day off, have a vacation, etc. If you already have a thesis, most complicated part is done. I am quite perplexed about a single submitted paper though. But hey, theoretically you don't need papers to get a PhD, just write done a monolith of theory.

You might appreciate some of the answers to What makes someone deserving of a Ph.D.? If you're close to completing the degree, it's probably better to complete it. It's not up to you to determine whether it's a "good" dissertation or not; your committee (who are more experienced) will approve or not.  If they're willing to approve it, why second guess them (especially if you're feeling less qualified)?

If you fail to finish your PhD you can expect to explain why in a lot of job interviews, in the private sector or anywhere else. People will be genuinely interested to know why you invested so much of your life in something and then didn't finish; many will assume you were insufficiently competent. If I were hiring you I would definitely spend some time probing you about this to understand your motivations. "In my area, it is very easy to get a well-paid job." --- unless you already have a well-paid job, that is a bold statement.

Voting to reopen.  I can't imagine a situation in which it would be advantageous to abandon the PhD right before finishing.  Therefore I don't think this is an "individual factors" unanswerable question.

Regarding the tribe problem -- in the short term, learn to give vague, misleading answers which are not outright lies.  For the longer term -- do a postdoc with a name you don't mind showing off.

@aparente001 Thanks for your suggestion. I have rewritten my post, and maybe you can elaborate it a bit more with the rephrased question.

@Otsirc - So far, it's not looking good for your question to be reopened.  However, you could try posting at Meta. // Additional thought for you to consider.  If Student A does a thesis with Professor B who is a hotshot with a big name and a large number of students, a solid thesis that falls short of being outstanding may garner a lukewarm recommendation letter from B.  So, the opposite situation from the one you described can also bring problems. Bottom line, just keep your focus on doing good work and behaving respectfully toward your mentors regardless of your poor opinion of them, and ...

let your character and your work create a positive image of you.  And in a couple of years your name will be able to be associated with your postdoc supervisor, rather than your PhD mentors.

@Otsirc Based on your rewrite, I have attempted to focus your question yet further on what seems to be the critical point --- is it harder to have a "mediocre" PhD or to have no PhD at all?  Please revert my edits if you disagree, but I believe this is now answerable and have voted to reopen.

@jakebeal I agree with your modification. Thanks for the edit.

@aparente001 Thanks for the edit. Your bottom line part is persuasive. So, you advice me to go with the degree?

@Otsirc I hope that it will be reopened soon, as I have an answer that I would like to write.

@jakebeal It's now reopened. For the OP: in certain countries you cannot have an academic career without a PhD, so, in such a case, you would have no choice other than completing the PhD.

@jakebeal - and otsirc - please double-check my edits to make sure they fit with what you were both trying to convey.

I strongly argue that a mediocre Ph.D. is better than no Ph.D.
The standard path to bootstrapping yourself up after a mediocre Ph.D. is a sequence of rising postdocs.  If you're really good, then when you move to a new institution with a postdoc, you should be able to do some nice work and build your reputation. After a year or two of that, you can try to move to a better institution with better resources and more interesting projects and do yet stronger work, etc. Doing two or three postdocs is not unusual, and is one standard path for improving one's lot after finishing a Ph.D.  Moreover, even if your institution and/or advisor is known for their mediocrity, that may not count against you: "They didn't do something very interesting, but how could they under Prof. Boring? It looks like they did well with the topic they had to work on, though."
If you are interested in being a high-profile researcher in industry or other non-university research institutions, the path looks much the same (in fact, some positions in industry and elsewhere are explicitly set up as postdocs). Once you move to "permanent" positions, however, you will likely want to take a longer period between moves, so that you aren't perceived as being unable to stick with a job. For that reason, term-limited positions like postdocs are likely to be better for rapid mobility.
For many research positions, however, you will simply be disqualified (either explicitly or de facto) if you do not have a Ph.D.  A Ph.D. is a minimal bar that shows you are capable of scientific work of some sort, even if mediocre, and if you have dropped out of a program, many people will assume you found you could not do this. You might be able to get around this by going through the world or tech start-ups, DIY engineering, or other non-standard routes, but this is much harder and the (scientific) success stories you hear about from these are very rare indeed---these worlds tend to make impact in other ways.
In short: a Ph.D. is a much straighter path to scientific prominence, and there are good approaches to help overcome mediocrity in your origins.

I support your answer.  One little quibble: "Doing two or three postdocs is not unusual" is very true in some fields but not at all true in some others.

@aparente001 The OP is asking specifically about computer science: once, this was very rare in CS, but these days is not terribly unusual (I know a number of people who have done multiple CS postdocs).

OP was asking specifically about CS but the question doesn't say that any more!  You know OP is in CS (I'll be honest and confess that I forgot!).  But the question as it got pared down doesn't mention that.  I believe the intent of the paring was to make the question generalizable so as to reopen it.  My personal opinion: if you soften that sentence a bit, I think your answer would be even stronger..

@aparente001 The question still has tag:computer-science, which I think is fine.

The exact number of postdocs is not really important; we can simply regard them as steps toward a good permanent research job, either in academia or in industry. This answer could be more thorough by adding the scenario where I get my PhD (maybe plus a postdoc) and then move into the industry.

@Otsirc I have added additional information about non-university positions, including industry.

Your argument for abandoning your PhD hinges on a few false premises.
P1) You will wear the mark of your PhD for your whole life.
That is not true. A PhD is, in principle, a degree given to someone capable of independent research. Whilst you do your PhD you may be associated with your supervisors. That's because you're a minnow in the sea and it is the easiest way for someone to know whether you are worth talking to (sorry about that). After your PhD, people will rarely if ever ask that. I say that as a postdoc.
P2) You will exchange your dignity for money if you renew your contract. WHAT? That's something internal to you, an external observer is unlikely to see it that way.
Moreover, if you do not intend to do a postdoc, none of these points you made will apply to industry people. They will just see that you have a PhD and they will think that's worth something.

I agree with this. I would just like to add that after finishing, even if you stay in academia, you can start your own tribe and stop feeling associated with the previous advisors/school. Being passionate about your research as you seem to be, you won't need to be under their influence, or any kind of relation. Furthermore, if postdoc is something you would consider, don't take it for denied just because what you saw in those meetings.

Thanks for you two's reply. I have rewritten my post and make it clearer, hopefully. Maybe you have something to add.

If you dislike it as much as you imply and you're actually 2-3 years away, then by all means find something better to do with those years.  But you say that you're very close, so I'll assume 6 months in my answer.
If I had to do it all over again, I would have not gotten my PhD; it was too much of my life that could have been better spent. However I have absolutely no regrets about the final 6 months, as difficult as they were. I recommend that you finish. Tech bubbles come and go, but potential employers and investors will always pay more attention to you if you have that particular set of initials.  You will also gain personal experience in finishing something big.
Finally, if you're concerned that your project will yield valuable IP that the university or your former advisers will lay claim to if you complete it as a student, talk to a lawyer.  Otherwise, as others have said, the "tribe" reputation stuff is nonsense.

Thanks for your reply. Could you elaborate about the last sentence? BTW, I have rewritten my post (see the paragraphs below the horizontal line).

Thanks for the rewrite.  It sounds like my "if you're concerned..." comment doesn't apply here.  I agree with others who have said building a reputation as a scientist without a PhD would be far harder than building one with a PhD from a mediocre group.

I do not quite understand what career path you have in mind, but a PhD in computer science is very valuable in industry. In the US you can expect 6 figures minimum. Obviously this is better if it's related to an in demand field, but really CS is close enough for many, and it shows your ability to do independent research.
On the personal side, it seems to me like you'd be happier bringing this chapter of your life to a close (another option could be transferring to a different university for a clean start) but if you quit this close to finish line I wager you'd regret it in the future.

"Transferring" is indeed an option, but I don't have in my mind the destiny university.

I am an extremely imaginative person, and I can only imagine a few scenarios where leaving your PhD program (without transferring to another) would set you up with a better science "brand."

If your advisor is not just mediocre but committing fraud or widespread plagiarism or advancing pseudoscience.
If you left for an extremely prestigious job working for/with someone known for their rigorous science. Essentially, someone on the Stephen Hawking level sponsors you as not needing to trifle with completing your Ph.D. (Separate from that sponsor, though, you're unlikely to receive academic or government funding. And after the Theranos debacle, private investors will probably be asking for more credentials before funding "science.")
If your advisor were a world-class jerk/abuser (think the Harvey Weinstein of academia) and mediocre, people might cold-shoulder you for the association. Even then, though, leaving the lab would say good moral things about you, but only neutral scientific things about you.

As commenters point out, you can make up for your brand. If you're almost finished, a postdoc is a good opportunity to "rebrand." If you're a few years from graduation, consider networking at conferences, especially where there's a graduate student track or special opportunities grad students can apply for. Those are potentially ways to make up for networking and advising opportunities you miss out on with a "mediocre" supervisor.

You must complete your PHD. Sure there are lots of useless PHDs but employers hate quitters much more than overspecailised irrelevent PHDs .So if you do not finish it will count against you badly .If you finish it may count for you .Maybe you should not have started but that is water under the bridge .Given that you have started and are more than half way there you should finish.

FWIW, I agree with what you're saying but your style is pretty blunt ("employers hate quitters"). The "must" and "should" that you begin and end make your answer harder to upvote, though, because they're broad advice rather than an answer to the OP's narrow question, and such an opinionated answer (in my book) would need even more evidence and discussion of values (what principles/perspectives underlie the "should"?) than you've provided.

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


text:
How to deal with PhD advisor ignoring correct answers
I am a PhD student. I am feeling something unusual in my PhD: to me it appears that my supervisor ignores my correct answers and always gives me a feedback when my answer is wrong. I know this is a good thing, but the problem is that due to this kind of his behaviour I always feel demotivated and my confidence has gone very low. These days I try not to give many answers because I fear being wrong, which gives the (incorrect) impression that I am not curious about research. To me it looks as though in academia people will not highlight positive things about you, but they will highlight negative things about you.
Question : How to deal with this constant negative feedback in academia as a PhD student?
One obvious solution is not to pay attention to these things; but that is not working for me.

I don't have an answer, but will confirm that this is common. This can be a good thing to a point (promotes rigor, deflates egos) but can also be very bad, for exactly the reasons you state (reduced engagement).

Have you considered telling your supervisor how you feel? There seems to be a perception in academia that everyone should be able to cope with constant negativity (or get out), but I think that's really unhealthy.

@Jessica B I think he knows about this.

Doing a PhD is hard work and many students go into depression through the process. I found when doing my PhD that having a supportive yet critical supervisor was what I needed, but it is hard when it seems as though everything is critical. Generally speaking, it is good to have a support structure outside of just your supervisor (e.g. other classmates) that you can complain with and encourage one another about what you are doing that is good. Supervisors can be arrogant and not wanting correction… but perhaps you can ask for support in mediation from your dept graduate director or equivalent?

There seems to be a perception in academia that everyone should be able to cope with constant negativity - I disagree with this part of your comment.  I would guess that many professors just don't realize how negative their feedback may come across as.

I don't know how exactly you communicate with your supervisor, but an academic discussion often looks like what you described. People don't pat each other's heads for every true statement, but they point out and (try to) disprove statements that are (likely) false. Eventually you realize that you've accumulated enough true statements to make a paper out of them, which is supposed to be your reward.

@Kimball I agree that many probably don't realise. But if someone points it out, nearly every response I've heard has approximated to 'deal with it, or you shouldn't be here'.

Your supervisor is giving you an immense complement. You getting things right is the normal, expected case, and needs no comment. The unusual, interesting case requiring discussion is when you get something wrong.

I think he knows about this. — What makes you think so? Have you actually told him directly?  Has he actually told you, with words, that he's noticed the effect of his feedback on you?  Unless you've exchanged actual words about his negative feedback and its effect on you, you know nothing of the sort.  Advisors are not mind-readers, and they sometimes need to be reminded with words that their students are neither mind-readers nor brains on sticks.

Do you and your supervisor have the same cultural background? Cultural differences could make the communication problem worse (what seems like a "normal" way of giving feedback for some people, could be seen as being very blunt/harsh by others)

I heard this anecdote (probably not true): When Hilbert (famous guy with world class group) was visiting Landau's group (also top of the world group), Landau asked him: "How come your group is so successful" and Hilbert answered:"I always tell them what idiots they are" in German. Landau's students:'What did he reply?'. Landau:'His group is so good because he tells them what idiots you are'. ---------- Long story short: praise breeds complacency,

Different people have different needs when it comes to motivation, for some, this means positive reinforcement and encouragement when things are going well, for others, this means receiving negative feedback and constructive criticism when things aren't going so well. The issue is often that supervisors aren't aware of your needs, and manage their students with whatever approach they've used in the past / has worked with previous students.
I had a similar experience with my PhD supervisor, and it took us the best part of a year to come to a mutual understanding over how we could both accept things being done. Ultimately though, he's never going to be a positive person, so whilst tempering his approach, he's still far more likely to criticise than praise. A few things that helped me during my PhD:

Make use of your co-supervisor / advisor / members of your thesis committee. Personally, I had a far better relationship with my co-advisor, so would speak to her when things weren't going well / I felt my supervisor was being unreasonably critical. She'd also been in the department with my supervisor for a long time, so could often bring things up in conversation with him that I couldn't.
Make use of your supervisors other PhD students who you know have a good relationship with him. Rather than "I think this _____", go with "I was discussing this with XX and we came to the conclusion that ______"- even if you're still wrong, you avoid some of the initial criticism / hostility.
Own your PhD. One of the hardest bits of advice I got given when I was unhappy with my supervisor was that I  was somewhat responsible for owning my research. From your supervisors point of view this is your project and you should be driving it, more often than not you should know the answer, or at least be aware of the issues regarding your knowledge.

This is really helpful, coming from someone who's worked with this type of supervisor. The first two bullet points are wonderful suggestions. // Could you clarify your last bullet point?  I'm having trouble understanding where you're going with this, for example "somewhat responsible."  Do you mean that advice was hard for you to hear?  Hard to apply?  Do you mean that you were advised to take more ownership of your project, i.e. take more responsibility for knowing answers to ...

... potential questions?  To satisfy yourself more fully with your own answers, so that you would be able to respond with greater confidence in what you were saying?

I've been thinking about this a bit, will hazard an answer. To me, the other answers seem in the right direction, but seem a bit too emotional/unprofessional. I would try to be a bit more concise and fact based.
I would start by sending an e-mail like this:

Dear Professor,
Based on some comments you've made, I am a little concerned about my performance in your group. Do you have a few minutes this week for a brief, private meeting where we could discuss? Thanks,
-Name

He may try to say "everything's fine" and avoid the meeting, but I would politely say that a performance review would be helpful for both of you.
In the meeting, I would let him do as much talking as possible. I would start with something like:

I asked for this meeting because it seems to me like most of the feedback I get from you is negative, and I'm wondering if this is just a communication issue, or if you are actually unsatisfied with my performance.

I would have a couple examples ready in case he says he is totally unaware of the issue and asks for examples. Another good follow-up would be:

I'm hoping to graduate in X years and would like to get a good recommendation from you for a job or post-doc. Are there any changes I will need to make if I am to earn a good letter from you?

I would suggest that you don't try to change the professor's behavior.

If he says everything's fine, then there is no issue, and you need to relax (this is difficult for everyone, but counseling can help in severe cases). As others have said, there is no need to discuss things that are obviously good, so it is natural to feel like most of the discussion is based on the less good parts of your work.
If he says that he is in fact unsatisfied and gives you a list of things to fix, I would try to build (with his input) some concrete, actionable steps, and request another meeting in 6 months to check on your progress. Make sure you distinguish whether he is just giving you room for improvement (no one is perfect) or whether he is actually unsatisfied with you (e.g., wishing he hadn't hired you).

I believe this question will be challenging to answer by anyone that is not a psychologist (perhaps them as well).  For the most part, I think this parallels a lot of the societal overtones witnessed today.
There is the cause-effect that occurs.  A thing is said, a person said it, a person heard/received it.  The sayer speaks with an intent.  The hearer interprets what is said, decides on its meaning, and determines how they take/respond-to it.  Signals sent, signals received, and signals translated.  This is the core of what occurs when someone becomes "offended" where the interpretation of signals by the receiver has applied offensive intent, whether any was there from the start.
A topical example would be the modern election. Words that carry a connotation, such as “snowflake” or “macho” were used to describe a class of people, but they sparked emotion and people took offense. Words/messages by themselves cannot be offensive, it is only how we receive them that triggers an emotional response.
Of course there are many elements that determine how that communication signal (message, words, etc) is translated by an individual.  Other factors such as intensity, repetition, etc influence how the signals are translated.  Interpretations seem to be relative based on an individual's conditioning and how much the signals deviate from standard (societal norm).  This is nothing new, it's like what defines morality.
In your case, it appears you are not conditioned to hear the constant negative feedback and thus are more responsive to it.  Society today has been preaching empathy, handholding, and "babying" unlike any society before it.  Whether that's good or bad is yet to be determined, but one thing is certain, little will change in your case without intervention.
Thus you have a few options:

You can change your philosophy and how you translate those signals so that your reactions work for you
You can hope the professor will come across something that will change their philosophy and behaviors
You can address your experience head-on

Exploring Option 3
I think option 3 would do leaps and bounds for your psychological sanity and professional development.  The goal, if it were me, would be to first establish a line of communication.  Just stating the issue may be enough, not only for your professor to address the issue, but also in generating respect for you.  Stating what does and doesn't work for you helps to establish your voice. Conducting the process of expressing your concern can also be therapeutic and relieve stress.
Next, I think a focus point would be not to concentrate on the critiquing/criticizing of your work, but to be thankful that they are giving warranted feedback and that the focus is to help you improve and meet your goals (succeed) with the professor's help.  This will help sidestep any defense mechanisms and instead concentrate on the best way for you to succeed (part of that may be better feedback).
Finally, it is important not to come with just problems, but also solutions.  "Your feedback doesn't help me" or "I feel demoralized with so much negative feedback" doesn't do as much as "I feel the repetitive feedback is negatively effecting my psyche and engagement on this topic.  I think I could be more successful if…"
Of course you won't be able to control another person.  Ultimately, your ability to persuade and work with them will help change their opinion or actions, but it is their decision to do so.  They could even come back and change your philosophy: "The real world will give you more negative feedback than I ever could, if you don't have the moral fiber or mental vigor to surpass the challenges you will face, then you may want to consider a different career path."
Of course the innocent, blunt truth is if you don't want to receive negative feedback, don't do negative things that warrant it ;) This is very blanketed and argumentative, but should suffice to incite re-evaluation of a perspective and thus, even if it may be considered a "dumb" response, could have benefits in going through the process.

Focusing on the communication part, a grad student told me: "Some people have filters on their ears, and some have filters on their mouths." That is, some people just don't hear a negative tone and say things very bluntly. Other people hear negative tones and, in their own speech, tend to be careful about moderating and counterbalancing negativity. Sometimes just remembering that that's how a person does things can help.

Completely agree and some things are a matter of habit.  I think identifying and recognizing the differences would eventually lead to either general improvements or at least understanding (side benefits of patience and leniency)

It has spurt?  Could you do me a favor and copy-edit your answer more carefully, to make it easier for people to grasp your ideas?

@aparente001 I’m on a mobile device, which we all know the auto-correction isn’t so great. Could you please refer to the numbered paragraph and sentence of where the offending error occurred? (find is also limited in the mobile app)

@aparente001 oh I see where your confusion is. I’ll try and make it clearer. Thank you

First of all, please be aware of the following:

There are some advisors who just never, or hardly ever, give positive feedback – no matter the quality of your work.
For some, this is just a bad habit they often are not aware of.
Others are convinced that this is the right approach for various reasons.
(If you ask me, this approach only works for a few students and applying it in general is flawed.)
For much academic work, there is little positive feedback you can give.
For example, a talk you give mostly becomes good by you avoiding a ton of possible mistakes (of which almost everybody makes some), but that’s not something on which you can build a large speech of praise – often all you can say is that everything was easily understandable, well organised, and the slides were visually pleasing.
This makes it very easy for feedback to feel overly negative, even though this was not the intention.
(Of course, this does not excuse the critic for not giving any positive feedback or emphasising the good aspects.)

With this in mind, I suggest the following course of action (some of which you may already have done):

Talk to fellow supervisees to find out what kind of critic your supervisor is.
This does not only give you information but may also confirm that you are not alone with your problem.
If your supervisor is responsive to constructive criticism about their advising style, talk to them (ideally together with the entire group) to inform them of the problem.
This may do wonders.
If you are sufficiently certain about your supervisor’s style of criticism, renormalise the feedback, i.e., try to interpret the criticism more positively, in particular interpret the absence of criticism as praise.
When leaving a meeting with your supervisor, try to first think about how much or little criticism you received and all the things that could have gone wrong and didn’t.
I know this is very difficult to trick your mind into doing, but once you get there, it may help a lot.
Fish for compliments, in particular if your supervisor is the kind who just forgets to give praise when it’s due, e.g., as follows:

Thanks for the detailed feedback, but what is your overall impression?
I found part X particularly challenging and time-consuming. Do you think the way I did it is okay?

This is a partial answer intended to supplement existing answers.
When one is planning to assert oneself with someone, and explain what one needs, there is often a fear that one is going to sound too emotional and the other person will have trouble getting past the emotionality, and hearing the message itself.  But I've noticed that the more one practices delivering the message, the more it becomes like stale cardboard, that one be rattled off like a shopping list. The feelings are still there, but they don't upstage the content any more.
Writing down a sample script and reciting it to oneself multiple times, however, isn't the kind of practicing I'm talking about.  That can just fuel the anxiety.  The kind of helpful practicing I'm referring to is when you practice by describing the situation and go through your proposed script with a supportive third party.
It can help to practice with several types of supportive listeners:

The easiest person to do this with is often someone completely unconnected
with the situation.
More challenging is someone in your department.
A department administrator could be the equivalent of a dress
rehearsal.

You'll know you've practiced enough when you can get through it unemotionally, without your pulse getting faster.
Here is a sample script, showing a sample message that you might want to try giving to give your advisor.  If you want to do this, I would recommend doing this in a special, short appointment made just for this purpose:

I'm experiencing a crisis of confidence.  I find myself always feeling afraid of saying something wrong, of making a mistake.  This is affecting my ability to express my ideas.  I find myself censoring myself because of self-doubt.  This problem is interfering with my ability to function.

(Short pause to give your advisor the opportunity to ask how s/he can help.  If s/he doesn't, though, that's okay, just keep going with the next part.)

As I'm getting over this hurdle, I'd like to ask for your help.  If you could make sure to tell me three positive pieces of feedback each time we meet, that would enable me to take more creative risks.

I have to warn you, even if your advisor agrees to this, and tries to do it -- some people have a way of poisoning compliments and making them sound worse than obvious corrections.  If this happens with your advisor, then you're probably better off focusing purely on finding other sources of validation.

Separate from the above: when one is going through an anxious time, it's often a good idea to check in with one's primary medical provider, and let them know that one is experiencing more anxiety than usual.  Doctors can track how impairing anxiety is for a person, over time.  Also, they may have suggestions for managing the anxiety.  (Such suggestions might include specific types of therapy or counseling, and/or medication.)


text:
Would it be professional to ask my host to cover my dining and commuting expenses?
I'm a M.Sc student in europe who is collaborating with a prof on a research project. He works in an institute which is in a different city than mine. He has offered to cover my up and down weekely train tickets.
Though the train trip in one direction is just 3 hours. Its during the lunch and dinner times when I'm on the train and the meals on the train are not included on the ticket and quite expensive for a weekly affair. For now, I pack some snacks with me but its by no means a full satisfactory meal. Essentially I starve for the whole day with no eating options at the host institute. Moreover, I travel for 45 mins by public transport one way from the station to the institute (i'm not sure if I can ask for taxi expenses either)
The meetings are for discussions on progress, ideas and general presentations on relevant papers. Its been very useful but I don't want to extend his generosity beyond the point where it becomes unprofessional.
I wish to keep this collaboration between me and him as professional as possible. Since I have no prior experience of a professor inviting me for discussing and working towards a common goal, I fail to find the line between ethical and unethical expenses which I can ask the supervisor for.
Any suggestions are appreciated! Thanks

Why can't you Skype him? It would save a lot of time and money, and you could still visit in person say once a month.

You have poor survival skills if you can't pack enough food to avoid "starving the whole day". That really shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't react sympathetic to a request for reimbursing those expensive food purchases on a train.

I've only been a visitor in the European context, but I believe these costs would be reasonable to bring up. (First check whether there are funds at your institution that could help cover the difference. Ask your advisor and perhaps a department administrator for ideas.) Below is a possible script and some potential ways to save money.

I'm getting a lot out of these weekly meetings, and I appreciate your making this possible by funding my train tickets, but I have been surprised by several aspects of the cost of travel that I did not initially expect. Finding food during the trip, and getting to the train station in an efficient way are actually adding up. Unfortunately, my institution does not have funds that will cover this. Is there any way your research funds could cover this as well? Or can we rearrange our meetings to cut costs?

Travel:

Now that you have communicated a lot in person, could you switch to an online meeting every other week? If there are regulations that say he can only cover train fare, at least you would cut your other expenses in half. Or he may be able to pay for a taxi and food with the savings from the train fares.
If your schedule remains regular, could you find other regular commuters to split the cost of a taxi and/or to reimburse for being a passenger in their car? Your institution may have a bulletin board, or there may be ride sharing services in your area that help with this.
Is there a regular taxi driver who may be able to coordinate with you? If you're able to regularly ride with someone at the beginning or end of their shift, for instance, they might appreciate that consistency and offer a discount.

Food:

You could ask if there is any way to buy or order food while you are at the institute; it may be cheaper than on the train, and he may decide to pay for your food when you visit.
My department does reimburse for food eaten away from home as part of travel, but I might personally find this harder to bring up.
You may also be able to get several sandwiches or pre-made meals for the trip, or get cheaper food at the train station itself.

Time:

You're probably exhausted after each one of these trips, and that feeling can add up. This might be another reason to change the schedule, perhaps spending a few days there at once, but not visiting as often. (Does the institute have guest housing, and/or is there a hostel nearby?)
Taking public transport to cut costs could work occasionally, but your time on transportation alone is going to be 7.5 hours, not to mention time waiting and transferring. It is reasonable to feel like that is not sustainable.

Thank you for these tips. Very exhaustive and useful! :)


text:
How to break this perception that my research trajectory will be almost the same as my research senior’s?
I am PhD student working in computer science. I am worried about the perception that my research career is going to be almost the same as that of former students in my group. I am not satisfied with this because:

I came from very good university as compared to my colleagues.
While I don’t think I am a genius, surely I am a very hard worker with discipline. To me it appears that I can do much better than other if I work hard for long period of time in academia.
I could have gone to a slightly better university for my PhD, but here I get to work with a professor who works in the research area I am interested in.

Please note, I am not saying these former students are not in a good place – they now have post-docs in good universities. I also know that I should focus on my research and should not compare myself with others, but this is difficult in practice.
Question: How can I break this perception that my research trajectory will be almost the same as that of the former students in my group?

If they're in good universities doing well why is that a problem for you? Maybe the product of your research is as good as your colleagues. Honestly I don't understand this question. You can do whatever you want of your life despite the people expectations.

@The Doctor Although I have not defined good but as might be knowing the difference between good and great. My question is "  my research trajectory will be almost same as my research senior's"?

Whose perception? Your own? Your advisor's? Your labmates? And what problems does this perception cause you?

@nengel Labmates and few comments I have read on academia stack exchange.

Your labmates won't change your career, and random people on the internet even less. Stop worrying about it.

So, find something « new / ground breaking » that will make your trajectory different...

Clarifications in response to comments should be made as edits, not comments.

Coming across as arrogant could change perceptions of your career trajectory, but not in the way that you hope.

First thing you need to do is get over your damned "very good university" elitism.  It's not which university you choose to go to, but what you learn and do while you're there that matters.

I hate to break it to you, but after a (very) short time in grad school, once you start making a name for yourself, people will predict your trajectory based on how they perceive you are doing right now in grad school, not based on your previous school and certainly not based on a self-assessment of your work ethics. If you have been there for a non-trivial amount of time, and nobody thinks that you will do exceptionally better than everybody before you, consider that this assessment may be more realistic than your rather rosy outlook.

How to break this perception that my research trajectory will be almost same as my research senior's.

Easy. Achieve substantially more impressive results than your peers in the same career phase. If you can't do this easily, what makes you think you will certainly do much better than them in latter career phases? If you think you have truly impressive results but everybody else in your institution does not agree, your problem is much deeper. Then you are either surrounded by people who can't see your potential and vision, or you are yourself blinded by arrogance and can't see when you are wrong. Both of these options are pretty bad.

You should take a look at the edit revision to OP's question. It's instructive.

I hate to break this to you, but this is equally true outside of academia and even outside of the workplace generally...

This answer is in addition to xLeitex's answer, which deals well with OP's situation. I would like to add some general points, however.

You have come out of undergrad or master's and are starting your PhD. This is a very different environment that requires different skills and caries its own challenges. Working among (hopefully!) intelligent, motivated and more mature people, you will find that standards are higher and attitudes are different - a bit like the transition from school to university. This transition often causes people a shock and results in imposter syndrome and similar issues. Almost all PhD students will feel insecurity and inadequacy at some point during their PhDs (but don't expect them to show it!). Be prepared for this, when it happens!
Generally, people are unlikely to judge a student's capability by their group. In fact, very often the best groups/supervisors do not produce the best students; the reason for this is that it's often easy for students in such groups to coast along on the backs of their supervisors and colleagues. When I think about groups I have worked in/with, they've all contained a huge range of students; some excellent, some barely passable. If you want to stand out, work hard, work independently and produce results. Be active in engaging in collaborations with other students/academics.
Be careful about judging other student's work - that not for you to do. Be aware that differences in output are often caused by differences in aspirations and motivation that do not necessarily make a student "better" or "worse". For instance, a student that has decided they wish to leave academia for industry after graduation will have far less impetus to push out high-quality, high-impact publications than one that wants to stay in academia. This doesn't reflect their capability nor their quality as a student.

It is rather outrageous to claim that if someone didn't feel insecure during their PhD, they are a sociopath or even probably a sociopath. Sure, most people feel insecure at some point (pretty much everyone I know, including myself). Claiming that the others are sociopaths... What the hell?

Forgive me, I being slightly flippant and hyperbolic, but also think I've misused the term sociopath. The OED defines it as someone antisocial, the internet as someone without morals. Neither quite reflects my intended meaning (which was really just meant to emphasise that it's quite normal to feel this way). I'll remove the parenthetical remark from the answer, unless I can think of better phrasing. From my experience in the Russell group, it is entirely true that a large majority of students feel this way.

(Besides, the rate of occurrence of actual sociopaths is likely low enough that, even given someone not feeling that way during their PhD, their likelihood of being a sociopath is probably pretty low. :) )

re. your edit: "Sure, most people feel insecure at some point (pretty much everyone I know, including myself). Claiming that the others are sociopaths... What the hell?" If one takes the definition of sociopath to be "differing from normal social function" (not that far off the OED definition) and this is, by your own admission, a deviation from the norm, that doesn't seem especially unreasonable.

@WanderingChemist This might be a cultural difference. In the US a sociopath is someone who demonstrates a fundamental lack of regard for the safety and well-being of other people and a lack of what would traditionally be identified as a conscious. The word is somewhat synonymous with “psychopath” but while psychopaths are commonly portrayed as “just crazy” a sociopath is deliberate about their actions and conscious of their effect on other people, but fundamentally doesn’t care.

That certainly wasn't my intended meaning! My OED defines it as "being extremely antisocial" but, in my experience, colloquial usage here is much milder (think Cumberbatch's incarnation of Sherlock). Regardless, I've removed it from the answer.


text:
How do I get to know/work with academics during my master's degree?
I am in my first year of my master's degree in Europe, and within a year or so I'll have to be sending out applications for a PhD (always in Europe), for which I need 2 to 3 recommendation letters. This is a huge issue  for me because I pretty much don't know anyone inside academia.
Recommendation letters should be written from people inside academia who know you, which I suppose means they worked with you on something.  The only person I worked with was my bachelor's thesis advisor, but I changed institution for my master's degree so I'm not in contact with him anymore. I also need to complete a thesis (equivalent to a semester of full work) for my master's degree, so I will have another thesis advisor eventually, but by the time I can start working on my thesis I will already have to be sending out PhD applications. Is it possible to work with academics in other ways than writing a thesis? Or is it otherwise possible to have an academic know you to the point of being able of writing a reference letter, without necessarily having worked with you?
Anyway this is not just a matter of recommendation letters. I think that having people in academia know and recognize me would give me better chances in getting admitted to a good PhD program. Moreover, it's nice to have someone to ask for advice when you need it.
I think for people who are already into their PhD it's easier, since at least you're put inside a research group and have your own advisor. But as a master's degree student I don't feel like I have many opportunities to establish contact with academics.

So why not getting in contact again with your bachelor thesis advisor? I hope you left in good. In this case he ia likely to support you with a letter.   If you have left burned soil behind, you now learn why this is never advicable in your carrier

@BerndGit My bachelor's advisor felt very satisfied with my work. I think it could be a good idea to contact him, however I'm not sure how to go about approaching him again. To be honest, I think he might not even remember me (he is kind of a forgetful person...)

Just try it. What can you lose? Call (prefered) or e-mail (if you feel more confident): "Hello xxx! As you remember, I was working on xx at yy/20zz. Currently I'm applying for an PhD. I have learned that it is very beneficial, if I could provide a recommendation letter herefore. Do you think you could support me in this regard? I would   appreciate your help very much. Best regards, xxxx"

@LorenzoQ. It's essential that you contact your bachelor's advisor. It shouldn't be hard to approach him, since you really aren't asking a "favour": Writing references is part of an academic's job.

Since you appear to be in Italy – actually a fellow citizen! – I'll try to give an answer from an Italian perspective. As a master's student, you usually have three possibilities to work with professors:

start working on your master's thesis;
apply for a teaching assistant position for one of the classes;
do an internship.

For what concerns possibilities 2 and 3, these may be available or not depending on university, field, year etc. For instance, I have TAs from both bachelor's and master's levels and I'd be happy to provide recommendation letters for them, as I did for others in the past.
If none of the above work for you, you can try asking professors whose classes you attended, getting top grades. In this case, however, they might not be willing to provide a recommendation letter. In fact, up to a few years ago, I wasn't willing either, as I explained in this answer. Nowadays, I accept (even though I don't approve of this practice) that recommendation letters are required almost everywhere, and I'm more willing to provide recommendation letters to students who attended my classes and somehow positively caught my attention (at the exam, through in-class questions, during office hours).

I already took into account the master's thesis, and an internship wouldn't be really useful as I'm studying pure mathematics. So that leaves option 2. In fact, I never though that teaching assistant positions could be useful for your academic career, I saw them more as a mean to earn a bit of money. That's because you typically do exercise sessions on very basic stuff with undergraduates. Still it's better than nothing I guess?

Asking professors on the basis of having completed their exams was my last resort. I try to be interactive during lessons and I think that in general I leave a good impression, but I feel like the professor has forgotten me as soon as the semester is over.

@LorenzoQ. Working as a TA is not only a way to earn a bit of money. What you do as a TA depends of course on the field (e.g. my TAs don't do exercise sessions, but lab sessions and prepare homework solutions), but whatever you do you'll have to interact with professors and if, during the exercise sessions, you are appreciated by the students, professors will know that.

This is a partial answer intended to supplement the other answers.

Invite a professor to be the advisor for a journal club which you would start (with some other students).  This would meet once a week and would include cookies.  The students take turns presenting about an interesting journal article they read.  The professor attends from time to time.
Attend seminars and talk about the presentation with other students, postdocs, and professors, afterwards.
Get to know professors in your department through more advanced students.  Pick a couple whose work particularly interests you to visit in office hours.  You can ask them to tell you about their current or past research interests.  (Make sure to read up on them before you go.)
Go to conferences.
Form a study group for one or more of your classes.
Attend other students' defenses and practice talks.
From time to time visit a class you're not taking, to see various professors in action.  (You can kill two birds with one stone by keeping a journal about the teaching techniques you observe.)
See if there are other students who share some hobby, and put something on a bulletin board to invite anyone interested to a get-together, for example, soccer, origami, board games or what have you.  As you get to know other students in the department better, you will get better integrated in the department, and will get an idea which professors you're interested in getting to know better.

One of the side benefits of all of this is that it's good preparation for your master's thesis -- you can get ideas from the seminars; you'll get ideas about what makes a good talk; you'll notice which professors might be advisor material.

Maybe in the OP's field is different, but all your suggestions are really far from the common academic culture in Italy, and none of them would work.

I think aside from taking up a journal (which is not a thing at all here, indeed) these suggestions might be useful. I attend conferences organized by my department but I usually find that I don't have the prerequisites for asking good questions or discussing things. I should definitely try to visit my professors more often. However in my past experience I found it hard to have a honest and open conversation about topics that go beyond the courses they're teaching, sometimes it seems like I can't bring them to talk freely. Maybe I should try to come up with better questions.

@MassimoOrtolano - I confess I didn't notice the "Italy" tag.  Sadly I have no acquaintance whatsoever with Italian academia.  I was writing based on my own experience of grad school in the US (95%) and 5% from a stint as a visiting student in Denmark. But your wholesale rejection of every single one of my ideas makes Italian academia seem pretty depressing and inhuman.  Which I never would have expected, judging from your and other Italians' participation at SE.

No, it's not depressing or inhuman, it's just organized differently with different traditions. It also depends on the size of the faculty. OP's department is fairly small (I attended lectures there when I was a student), and things might be slightly different from my university. A first important difference with respect to the US is that in Italy there are no campuses and most of the students commute, with up to 1 hour commuting times, and tend to go home at the end of the lectures. This reduces a lot the number of periodic group activities. Then, let me make a few examples from all points.

For what concerns point 1), here journal clubs are uncommon. Actually, I've never seen anyone running one in twenty years, just a few sporadic initiatives. Also during meetings it's uncommon to bring food or drinks (not even coffee: in Italy we go to the bar).  For point 2), take into account that in Italy students don't have office hours. TAs are not expected to answer student's questions in office hours: TAs run in-class exercise sessions or do lab assistance, but are not available outside those time frames.

Take also into account that, with respect to the US, the ratio between students in a class and TAs here is much higher: there is usually one TA for 50-100 students. For what concerns seminars, many professors here don't deliver seminars in their departments (e.g., I've never delivered a seminar in my department in twenty years), and when local professors attend seminars, they usually run away at the end: a student wouldn't usually have the possibility to speak with them. These are just a few examples to give you an idea of the differences, if you want to know some more we can continue in chat.

@MassimoOrtolano - I'm sad to hear about the professors running away right after seminars. // Not sure your source of information about the TA to student ratio in the US.  As a TA, I've had a variety of ratios, including some quite that were quite large; as a student, I've had plenty of classes with no TA. // So what actually are the warm fuzzy aspects (if any) of your system?  I'm not asking in order to judge, I'm just wondering.

You can also contact a researcher and say you are willing to work on some research project, with the goal of writing a paper together. It requires a lot of effort from you as a student, but it can definitely pay off, both for you and for the advisor.
I had a student (freshman) contacting me a few years ago, wanting to work on discrete mathematics. We ended up writing two research papers together, and I wrote him a recommendation letter for a transfer to a different university. He is now at MIT.
The downside is of course that you do not get course credits for the research (but if successful, you get a paper).

I always had the impression that publishing before a PhD was something absolutely out of the ordinary, say for less than 1 student out of 100. Personally I don't know anyone who did or intends to.  I enjoy challenges but I don't really feel like I'm ready for research, when I try to read research papers I find out I barely know the basic concepts behind. I will consider it for the future, but I was hoping there was something more within my current reach.

@LorenzoQ. Sure, it depends a lot on the topic - discrete mathematics is quite reachable actually, for students who know a bit of programming. One can basically 'start' doing research after reading the two books by Richard Stanley (Enumerative combinatorics I & II). There is a lot of theory and stuff, sure, but these problems eventually boils down to counting, and counting is easy to understand.

@LorenzoQ - I don't know if this is possible in Italy, but in the US one can sign up for an independent study as a way of dipping a toe in the water, getting ready for original research.  In your case, the professor would probably suggest that you spend some time learning to read journal articles.  The professor would start at whatever level you are currently at, and go from there.  Thus, perhaps you would spend a month or more on one article.  First, try to get an overview of what it's about; then slog through some of it and bring a list of questions to your weekly meeting (prob. one hour).


text:
How to get in situ anonymous global evaluation from students about the works of their peers
My undergraduate students are going to present their group works to the whole class. I would like that their companions globally and anonymously evaluate them, so that each team can in situ get a grade for their work in this way (besides the evaluation they would get from me as teacher).
My questions are if someone can provide some previous experience about this evaluation strategy (either as a teacher or as a student); and which app or tool could be used for this purpose (i.e. so that the class can vote and we instantly know the points for each team).

I don't think this is a good idea.  It would be much better for students to make positive, non-quantitative comments about their classmates' work, such as "One of the things I liked about this presentation was how the structure of the presentation was made clear in the beginning, and how the outline was referred to as the talk went along."

You should think this through carefully so that no one can game the system. This could easily just reward popular students. Many nice students will not want to grade people down (making the grades basically meaningless), while a few hyper-competitive students might give everyone else zeros thinking that it raises their own grade.
Scarcity of votes could force people to make thoughtful votes.
I've heard when you ask people to grade themselves and their groupmates, you can get truer evaluations by giving them a set of points to split. E.g., 3 people in group means divide 30 points among you. Instead of the usual, "Oh, everyone gets 100%!" students are often more realistic if boosting one person's score without merit takes away from another person's score. (In any case, you might not want to bind yourself to using the students' scoring directly for grades, but rather using it to inform your decision.)
You could apply this "scarcity of votes" in a couple of ways.

Come up with, say, 3 rubric categories (content, oral presentation, visual presentation). After each presentation, ask people to vote (hands or clickers or some web poll app) on which category the team did best. Two teams that were great overall or horrible overall may the same score as each other, but each gets feedback about which part is most productive to spend time improving (the rubric category they got the fewest votes on).
Have all the voting at the end of the session. Write each group's title on the board (or project it) and give each person 3 sticky notes place on the board next to the titles, to vote for their 3 favorites.

If voting happens after each presentation, I'll also note there will be strong ordering effects from non-trained evaluators. If all the topics are similar, the early ones will have high scores and the later ones will have low scores. If it's a harder task than expected, then people will be kinder to later presenters. These effects may still be present if you save the voting until the end, but perhaps not as strongly. (Possibly you'll get recency effects, that people will remember the most recent good presentation and vote for that.


text:
Postdoctoral grants for writing review papers
I am a PhD student in Bioinformatics at a big university in Canada working in the area of molecular biology and computational models. Due to the nature of medical research, we often approach very tiny problems and often lose the big picture of the real world problem that should be addressed in practice. What I have in mind to do after the PhD is to spend a year or so to study all research aspects of a specific disease (e.g. Multiple Sclerosis) to gain a big picture of everything that is happening within the field and then extend it to some industrial applications. I am wondering if it is common or at least possible to receive a grant for a series of review studies on a field with deliverables like review papers?

In Canadian grant parlance, I believe the kind of grant you are talking about is called "knowledge synthesis". The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has some information that describes this kind of grant. However, although such a thing exists, it might not be so readily available:

The page I linked is rather old (probably at least 5 years old), so I don't know if CIHR still funds this kind of research.
I'm not sure how CIHR operates, but I know that SSHRC (for social sciences and humanities) sends out very specific calls from time to time for knowledge synthesis grants specifically for literature reviews (here is a recent example). So, in that case, it is the funding agency that picks the topic, not the researcher.
In general, I don't think the major Canadian funding agencies offer this kind of grant directly to post-docs. Normally, it is for faculty members. Post-doc grants are separate, and I'm not sure if they would be fund literature reviews.

Ultimately, as far as CIHR is concerned, it is best to directly ask the scientific director of the specific institute that covers your area of research. They might be able to answer your questions


text:
how do supervisors determine that a phd student is not doing great?
This question contains this:

After months of work as an RA in a research group, at the end of the semester, my adviser informed me that he was not satisfied with my research and would not continue to fund me.

I am just curious, how do supervisors determine that a phd student is not doing great? What factors do they consider?

It's not quite clear to me whether this is a rhetorical question -- what factors do you think matter when evaluating someone's job performance? It's not like professors consider some hidden oracle about this, but they judge their new employees in much the same way as most employers would.

I consider this a useful question. Academia is extremely opaque compared to most workplaces; students are by definition still learning; and few professors have any management training whatsoever.

As a postdoc, I have supervised only Master's students. To determine how they are doing, I typically pay attention to three different aspects:

Ability to learn. Can students learn new skills (experimental or computational techniques)? The more advanced a student is, the more independence I'd expect here.
Understanding of subject matter. Does the student understand how their research fits in the broader research field, and why they are using the techniques they are using? Can the student come up with better ways of answering their research question/come up with a better question to answer/find the good question to ask?
Ability to prioritise. How easily does the student identify and work on the most important sub-question to answer? As a project comes close to being finished, can the student keep up a strong pace to deliver final results as quickly as possible?

I don't have a rule to determine when someone isn't doing good enough - I have never had to make that decision. Probably that decision would come when I find that, despite feedback, someone isn't improving on these aspects as I think they should.

Professors are not always the best mentors yet a good one is a good people manager who has had training in Positive Reinforcement by Dr. Aubrey Daniels as we all did at work in the 80's. The process involves setting objects, measuring results and getting constructive feedback with consequences for negative results after retry.
Start by writing your own measureable objectives following guidelines from your boss, review with him/her with a timeline and testable criteria, # of critical problems, and performance metrics etc.
Measured accompishments, can be self-rated and compared with boss for discussion on defining clear expectations , refining goals and strategies for improvement.
It can be simplified into Time , Performance (multi-tasking), Quality and Cost Savings for a performance expected that is expected with some level of experience...  or exceeded in more than one significant way
Then there are soft skills such as being; reliable , self-reliant, innovative, creative and networking in a way to save time yet not over-burdening , being resourceful, positive attitude towards self and others.
Learning how to learn is the hardest for some to accomplish. yet this is the main goal in Univ, as in industry the practise becomes more diverse and also more focused. e.g. learning how to condut a business plan or lab report or Design Specifications  with a Design Validation Test plan and report using structured concise yet simple results to prove validity of the specs and accuracy of the results.
A perfect design is one that only meets "all of the necessary specs" such as Cost, performance, quality and reliability under any environment expected. Climatic, Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical. etc. ; benign or to extreme.
Yet with a faster learning curve gained from experience of failures of others and self by learning solutions and constant reading.  This is the fastest way to grow under pressure.
I suggest to request 15 minutes of your bosses time to discuss expectations and you return with this understanding in writing in measureable concise results.
You may also solicit colleague review feedback as everyone is your customer as you are to them for information.  Having it in writing for your own learning process is a tool for self improvement.
If it is worth doing, it is worth documenting, but critical issues should always been done in person.

yet a good one is a good people manager who has had training in Positive Reinforcement by Dr. Aubrey Daniels as we all did at work in the 80's -- How do advisors, who have not had this training, determine that a PhD student is not doing great? (I suspect that not a lot of academic advisors have had this training, my former advisor and myself, included.)

Follow my outline and get the book otherwise, it may be a subjective analysis rather than objective with measureable results.  This is pretty common everywhere with Human resource management in many industries. There is no harm is sharing this method with your boss as long as the KISS approach is used, or don't ...


text:
How to address professors in emails?
I have been greeting all my professors as "Professor (last name)" in emails I send to them. I think this is normal, but at my university all the professors/lecturers use their first name when ending emails they send.
For example, if the teacher's name was "Joe Smith", they might end an email they send as follows:
Regards,
Joe
This behavior is the case with all of the professors I've had, so it seems to be something that's global to the university. Should I be addressing my professors by their first name in emails? I would have done so already, but I don't want to sound disrespectful. I've looked it up but haven't found any guidelines my university gives on addressing faculty.
Also, I think this question is different from others because as far as I know, my university is an exception with all professors using their first name.

Could you add a country tag, please? These thing* might differ by culture.

Cultural context is definitely needed, as well as what stage you are at academically. Also, one should remember that professors are "normal" people too, so don't agonise too much over the greeting, and secondly, they get A LOT of email, so they won't agonise over your greeting either.

It's really not uncommon for professors to use their firat names, and it's certainly not unique to your university. I wouldn't worry about it.

If in doubt, "Prof. Lastname" is always appropriate for an undergraduate addressing a professor.
I sign all of my emails with my first name, but would find it quite strange if an undergraduate student started addressing me by it, unless we had done research projects or extensive service together justifying that far more intimate form of address.

No ''Dear' Prof. Lastname' required?


text:
Falsified student signatures in class attendance list
I am required to keep a tag at the students' attendance of classes by the rules of the university where I teach. The students' attendance cannot be lower than 75% of the classes, or else they automatically fail the course. To do so, I am required to handle them a signature sheet in each class. I am also expected to keep this sheet as proof I really taught the said class. (Not that I agree with this system, but the director can inquire a teacher and they must be ready to present this "proof", so I must abide by this rule.)
I have already come to terms with the fact that this is not really evidence of the students' attendance: they come late, leave before the class is finished, sign the sheet, and that's fine. However, even so, there are many absences and there is also the case of those students who falsify their classmates' signatures. I have already warned them on the first day of class that that won't be accepted, but in some cases the warning went unheeded.
The question is, I've had experience that the directors will also doubt the veracity of the attendance sheet, possibly accusing me of being too unyielding and uncompromising, even hinting that I must have falsified the whole thing with evil intentions. Because, according to the directors, a significant majority of the students must pass, regardless of their efforts. I have tried to be more "accepting" of absences (mainly if the student has good grades), but I cannot swallow having to condone falsified signatures. Should I follow the "culture" of the faculty that don't care the least about this fact (attendance and falsified signatures), despite their own rules? Or should I follow the rules and face the (possibly unpleasant) consequences?

Could you hold your nose when you deal with the attendance sheets, and focus your energy on improving student outcomes?  Is this an issue that is worth possibly endangering your employment status?

Honestly, you should start looking for another job.

@JeffE, I've already started, but as long as it takes, my soul is already sold.

@aparente001, that's what I'm doing. If it can endanger my employment status, I cannot tell (I'm a tenured professor, believe it or not); it's just mildly nauseating.

I have to take attendance to (35 in a class) and read through the list ticking them off. I used to pass round a list, but since Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck were often present - at least on paper - I dropped that. One colleague uses the panoramic photo on his phone...

Instead of passing an attendance sheet, I would suggest giving an extremely easy quiz (as in, "1+1=?"), with one copy personally given to each student.  (So if there are 40 students present, you should give out only 40 copies of the quiz.)  The quizzes should have the student's name and signature.  This should take care of the "one student, many signatures" problem.

How big is the class? If it's small enough you can identify the students, you could start adding your own initials next to the signature of students you see.

My method (well, a colleague's method that I use) is to announce that I will count the signatures and the students. I wait until they start working on an exercise and I do it quickly. If the numbers don't match, I stop everyone and call out the names one by one, crossing those who aren't actually here. I usually have to do this once at the beginning of the semester and never again. However the students don't automatically fail if the attendance is low, it's just used for when students actually fail and you want to see if they deserve leniency or not (if someone never comes to class, well...).

@NajibIdrissi, I've done that before. It almost works -- except that, as I said, attendance rates vary during the class: sometimes I start the class with 30% of the students, and some students just show up to sign the sheet and leave (many, not just some, start leaving before the class is over).

@NajibIdrissi, In fact, I often used the student's attendance to evaluate if they deserved leniency in homework or exams: but leniency is practically mandatory as per the semi-automatic-pass policy of the university. To give you an idea, one semester the students signed a petition against me because they'd gotten bad grades in 1 out of 3 assignments. I was pressured by the dean and the course director to pass even those who had plagiarized.

@Joseph - Have you ever experimented with having some interactive portions of class, and making notes of students who had positive participation -- as a way of raising a grade when it's in a gray area? // If you are being pressured to pass plagiarizers then I will give you the Official Aparente License to Be Bitter.  Just focus on whatever is rewarding for you and go through the motions with regard to departmental expectations.  In a corrupt system you cannot do problem solving.

The system you're describing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to me (both for the students and for you; these things generally go hand in hand). I would therefore sympathize with (and turn a blind eye to) students tricking their way through it to the extent that is necessary to let them focus on the actual work. It's sad that they are getting free lessons in forgery when they ought to be learning something more wholesome, but as long as they are doing the coursework without academic dishonesty (as in, homework plagiarism), this should not count against them. A class is not a test of conscentiousness.
If you want to push your students to attend the class, there are other methods that don't involve automatic failure, such as giving mild homework hints in your lectures.
[Extended from my comment.]