text:
Recommendation letter from advisor with different research interest
While I was an undergrad, I wrote a paper on topic A with my advisor. Currently, I'm working in a research institution with an Economist whose work mainly lies on topic B. However, I've come to understand that I do not like A or B, but I'm more interested in topic C, and I've done some independent study on topic C. I'm thinking of asking my undergrad advisor and my current Economist for recommendation letter to apply for PhD in topic C.
How will admission committee for PhD view such recommendation letters from academics whose work is not on my current interest? That is, will it have any negative influence in my application, if I seemed to change my interest often?
To be specific, all topic A, B and C is under the field of Economics, but are vastly different from one another (especially the switch from A to B; it was like learning completely new subject). Knowledge gained from A and B can only be partially transferred to C.
Related, but does not quite answer the question that I have: Value of recommendation letters from professors in a different field. My question is more focused on the fact that two recommendation letters will show my interest in certain research topics were very short-lived.

I think it depends on exactly how long you worked with these two individuals and what you accomplished. You want strong letters, so if you worked with both of them long enough for them to assess your basic research abilities and potential to develop into an independent researcher, I think the fact that they don't work in your exact desired field won't matter much. The fact that all three topics fall under the same Economics umbrella probably makes it even less of an issue.
It is true that sustained interest in a field/topic is usually a positive. However, I think you and your recommendation letters can spin even short-lived interests into a positive thing if you demonstrate that your prior experiences in A and B were valuable from a research skills development standpoint, while also helping you narrow your research interests down to topic C. Switching topics after you start a PhD can become difficult (especially the longer you wait), so admissions committees may look favorably on any prior work that helps you discover your research passion.

Both works were about 2 years in length, which I assume is a reasonable amount of time for them to gauge my skills (hopefully). I was more afraid that such recommendation letters may raise red flag for admission committees who might think I'm flippant with my interest. How can I convince them that I would not be as flippant as I was?

You can describe what you got out of the two experiences in terms of skills, etc, and why you ultimately decided to pursue C instead of A and B. If you can provide a rationale for why you want to pursue C and how your work in A and B helped you realize this, then I think most committees would be understanding.

I do not think it matters.  If these people can best speak to your abilities then that's that.  The key point should be to get letters of reference from people who can give context to your application and your achievements beyond the information the committee will get from your transcripts and other documents you submitted with your file.
Knowledge between fields may not be completely transferable, but research skills often are.  Thus, a recommendation like "This guy is great because he got an A in my class on topic C" is useless, but someone who can expand on your ability to find resources and data, to analyze this data, even on topic A or B, is much more valuable.
The committee may regard your change of interest as positive or negative - this depends on committee I suppose, although I don't know of very many places where the expectation is that your interests as an undergraduate and junior graduate students will not change, especially as research topics are often driven by those of the supervisor.

It is quite understandable for an undergrad to still be exploring interests. In your application, it is good to create a narrative that links together A,B & C so that a reader can see your thought process and see that you were adapting your interests as you learned more rather than just getting bored and moving on to something new.  I agree with @user67075 that the letters speak more to your aptitude/character than specific interests.


text:
Competition in department among professors
My professor that I've worked for, and other professors that I've met in undergrad, often complain about how it is "publish or death" situation in their department. Specifically, they have told me that they feel like they are under heavy pressure to publish, often having to work for late nights and weekends. It's somewhat ironic because they thought that life would get much easier once they finish PhD and perhaps get a tenure, which is exactly what I'm thinking now.
However, they told me that they are often over-worked and burnt out as well, just like many other PhD students. It might be worst because for many of them, it's been a long marathon, working day and night to obtain PhD, just to compete with many outstanding candidates fighting for limited positions in universities, and if they have successfully secured the job, to work insanely to impress other colleagues and get tenured.
Even for tenured professors, while they won't be fired for not publishing, they have told me that they are often looked down upon if they don't publish many papers in good journals, especially since they are now 'senior researcher' in the department. While these are purely anecdotal with very limited sample, I feel that there might be some truth in their complaints.
My question is: Is it common for professors in university to be under such high pressure and constant competition? Why do people want to go into academia if they are under such stress?
I personally would not want to go into academia, if I know that for the rest of my career, I'd be under constant pressure to outperform others and publish as many papers as possible in the best journals. I may be naive, but I feel that workload in academia easily exceeds that of industry job with fixed 9-5 hours, and I doubt many industry jobs have such fierce competition among the 'best of the best'.
I'm aware that this may be field-dependent, so I'm interested to hear from people's experiences in many fields. I'm currently in US, but I want to hear from experiences in other countries if they have different cultures.

For a lot of fields all the people in the lab depend on the PI continually getting funding. A revise and resubmit on an article is an inconvenience, a revise and resubmit on a grant with a pay line of 10% can mean people do not eat.

life would get much easier once they finish PhD — nope.

The answer to your first question is "yes". A partial answer to your second question is "because nowadays.there are not many high-profile jobs where you don't need to constantly (out-)perform your competition."

@xLeitix I agree that most jobs require competition to a healthy degree. However, while I may be naive, I feel that degree of competition and resulting workload in academia easily surpass that of industry jobs, and the sense that I get from my professors' stories is that such competition/stress in academia is no longer healthy.

@Hosea I have a number of friends who have fairly high-level jobs in industry, and I can assure you that their workload is surely not inferior to that of anyone I know of in academia. Or as a recommendation for a friend of mine who is an industry manager says: "available 24/7".

That's pretty much my situation.   Universities are now in competition with one another for prestige, and by extension students and funding. In turn, they need staff to perform.  For a lot of people, it's no longer about the pursuit of science for science sake.  Consequently, I no longer advise my students to go into academia.

I wrote an answer to a related question a while back, which I think could be helpful for you.  See what you think: http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/42726/32436

I'll tell you my experience in pure mathematics.  Some departments (usually the more elite ones) are more competitive than others, and some fields are more competitive than others.  While your field and environment certainly play a large role in how much pressure you feel, the amount of pressure you feel is also largely determined by your attitude toward your work.
I think my department is very friendly and uncompetitive, though I go through phases of feeling more pressure or less pressure, but these are mainly internal pressures, e.g. I want to get this paper finished by this time for some arbitrary self-imposed reason, but I don't feel like there's some result I have to get.  My attitude now is I just think about certain things and try to understand them.  Maybe a paper comes out of this, and it may or may not be what I was hoping to do.
When I was a grad student, and a postdoc, I noticed some people were more harder working than me, and would get better results, but I didn't want to work 14 hour days every day.  And I figure I'd just work how I want to, and then the type of school that's willing to hire me given my output at the time will be happy with me working how much I want.  Indeed, I did not feel any pressure before getting tenure or afterwards.  While during some periods I do work long hours, typically I work 40-50 hours/week, am not too stressed, and have the freedom to work on what I want to.
Generally, people stay in academia because they like what they do, though there are unpleasant parts of the job (refereeing, grading, certain committee work, etc), and certain times of the year are more hectic than others.  Typically as you get more senior, more gets asked of you (though you don't need to always say yes), but this is probably true for most industry jobs as well.  In industry, a lot of deadlines are harder than in academia, and a lot of people get stressed out and overworked in those jobs too.

There is always pressure to succeed in life, and further, people who get prestigious jobs are often those who are self-motivated to do exceedingly well.  I've also noticed athletes who cannot have "fun" playing softball or whatnot because they are so upset when they or their teammates play badly.  Unfortunately, these are the types of people who often win in competitive situations.
There are enormous differences between departments both within and across institutions. Believe me, even one crop of PhD students or a year of undergraduates can make things more or less pressured, let alone university or department executives.
Why do people become academics?  Two reasons: because they love what they do, or because they feel like they can't do anything else.  The latter is nuts. If you do not love what you are doing, get out now. Anyone who can make it to a PhD let alone to faculty can get a good job in industry. But academia really is about getting to spend at least some of your time pursuing and talking about things that really truly interest you, and might change the world.

I doubt this is true "... can get a good job in industry'.  I am only good for generating papers, and not the $ kind.

As a postdoc that has been actively searching jobs pretty much everywhere I could reasonably apply, I can confirm that things are not easy at the moment! (Computer/Data sciences, fyi). But then again, apparently I'm nowhere near tenure, so maybe flipping burgers will be my future :)

I'm serious, any academic has decent analytic, writing,  and people skills; you can do better than flip burgers even if you never get grants.

While I like your answer and voted on it, I felt that Kimball's answer was closer to what I've wanted. Thank you for your insight!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Pros and cons of teaching as a PhD student for non-academic future
I started teaching this year. Since at the beginning the idea was just to do exercise sessions and now it starts becoming very (maybe too) time consuming with slide preparation, correction of homeworks and exams, I'm considering the idea to quit teaching.
My impression is that the time spent teaching/correcting/preparing is affecting very negatively the amount of time I spend in the research and the quality of my work.
Since from an economic point of view there are not a lot of advantages (roughly +10%), in the principle my idea was to earn teaching hours for a possible future in the academia, even without being sure about my future.
Since I have no idea about what to do after the phd and one of the possibilities is industy I was wondering whether ≈ 200 hours of teaching are seen positively from an industry perspective or if they are totally unnecessary from who is planning a future in the industry.

Quickly: learning how to deal with accidentally uncooperative co-workers/clients/subordinates, doing justice to everyone without going crazily over-time, setting up boundaries, and all that sort of professional-social stuff is very useful in all human endeavors (even maybe with hermits, who have to convince people to bring them scraps?) :)

The first time you teach a course there's a lot of overhead.  If you hold onto all your stuff, it gets more streamlined in subsquent semesters. // In some industry jobs, having teaching experience is helpful, to get the job and to be successful in it.  However, for some industry jobs, it wouldn't be very relevant. I think you could benefit from some career exploration -- by this I mean that you shadow one or two people working in your area, in industry.  You follow the person around for a half day or a whole day, getting a feel for the activities, getting to know the environment.

Not that your question is off topic, but it might get better answers at Workplace.  However, I do believe many companies value employees who can effectively teach things to others.

You (hopefully) learn how to communicate and present things in a clear and time-effective manner, how to plan not just for yourself but for others, and to spot and correct mistakes (I don't mean homework mistakes, but if the class as a whole is headed down one track and you figure out how to change the curriculum to be more effective). These are all essentially leadership skills.

I think the comments on your question already give a quite clear answer: Yes! Most industries really like someone that can communicate complex concepts clearly, either to management or to their team. Teaching a course is one of the best ways to learn this.
Personal note: I once had an interview for a relevant, part-time job, next to my Master's. The job I had at the time was as a rowing instructor, with poeple having very different skill levels and ranging in age from 20 to 80. Throughout the interview, we kept coming back to things I learned there, regarding communication, conflict solving, keeping a team together, that kind of stuff. Teaching a class will give you a similar experience in my opinion and will be a very valuable skill for any employer.

And don't discount all that experience standing in front of people and talking while thinking on your feet and answering questions. Perfect training for a real world job.

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


text:
What rules exist to get accommodation regarding coursework due to a depression?
I am writing this after much consideration, in a hope that I will be able to get practical thoughts to deal with the situation. I have recently been diagnosed with major depression. Although I have never talked about it in public, most of my life so far I was dealing with it without even knowing there is a help out there. Most of the time I will just ignore or pretend that I am feeling nothing. My emotional ups and downs have been a major barrier in my progress. I found myself most of the time pushing myself with extra motivation, but then again it wears off.
Most of my academic life I have been told that I am not consistent. In my high school, I would do very good in one term and then I would do very bad in the next. I was in no category. My teachers thought I am good student but I just simply don't study sometime that's why I am not consistent. But I know the hard truth. Listening to sad songs, feeling sad for simple reasons, getting angry and feeling lonely, I thought all these are internal characteristic of me that I can never overcome. After my high school, with lots of motivation, I was able to get into one of the top-50 colleges in the US. Note that I am an international student. I made that with financial grant and scholarship from that college.
After I came here, I already felt the cultural difference but I was quick enough to blend in. However, my depression was not. I worked hard to sound and speak like native speakers and learned English fluently, although I was still struggling with my emotion. I was even embarrassed to talk to anybody because there are so many talented students in our school from all over the world and I was feeling like an imposter. Then I saw this view on growth mindset by Prof. Carol Dweck and I decided no matter what happens, I will make it to graduation.
I am rising senior now. With all that rickety events in my academic progress, I was still hanging in there and then decided to get expert helps.It was then when I learned about my depression. I just started to take medication. This semester at one point I was so depressed that I did not go to take an exam. I was diagnosed with major depression after that period. Most of my professors were kind and gave me second chances in terms of homework and lab work. However, this particular professor seems not to have any empathy whatsoever. I tried my best to make him understand but he insists that I drop out of the course. And if I drop out then I have to take the course in summer, which will jeopardize my internship offer. Another class next semester follows this class and I must take this class now in order to graduate on time.
I would like to know if there is any rule in academia for students with a mental disability that will help me at this point and also do you have any suggestion for me for making my academic experience much better in general, considering my situation.

Welcome to academia.SE!  I empathize with your situation, but I don't think stackexchange is the right place to look for assistance.  The policies you're asking about would be particular to your university, and this certainly isn't the right place to get counseling.

First of all, congratulations on getting professional help; keep it up! — And if I drop out then I have to take the course in summer, which will jeopardize my internship offer. — Your mental health is far more important than your internship offer or graduating on time.  Depression is not a weakness; it's a illness.  Getting professional medical treatment with your illness may delay your graduation, but that delay is not failure.

@DavidKetcheson - Academia SE is exactly the place to get information about accommodating a disability as a student.

I have voted to close but I think you might be able to rephrase it to get it reopened, if you can be a bit clearer about your actual question, and phrase it in a way that can be applied more generally. At the moment it is essentially "Any suggestions?" which is a bit too broad. Regardless, I hope that you are able to get the advice and support that you need.

Why should this be closed? This person needs help, and we are the only ones that can help. Knowing that there is a nationwide rule for that in the US makes the answer already relevant enough. Knowing that there is no such rule in some European countries, make me sad enough, but knowledge pushes change!

Aks the professor of the second class (that depends on the one you missed), to still let you join (inofficially, with the promise to give you the certificate after you passed course 1, if needed). Maybe he is more considerate than the other professor.

You may also find the answers to this question helpful: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/66846/should-i-quit-my-phd

There is a structure for dealing with this in the U.S.: a Section 504 Accommodation Plan.  If you get your health status established with the Office for Students with Disabilities (it might have a slightly different title in your school), you won't have to negotiate directly with an individual professor.  That office will do that for you.
Your school should have instructions posted online, and you can also email, phone or visit.  I will warn you that some of these offices are warm and fuzzy and supportive and some are not.  You might do well to start assembling some preliminary documentation before meeting with them.  If you could ask around in your university to find out what others' experience with that office has been, that could be helpful.
You will need medical documentation of your diagnosis, how it affects your ability to function academically, and recommendations for accommodations.  It is often helpful to brainstorm a list of accommodations you think could be helpful, and share it with the medical provider who is going to be your primary documenter.
In the long run, I think it will be helpful if you can build your identity as a student with a disability in a broader way than "student with major depression," and see yourself as part of a larger group of students with many different types of disabilities.  I love this article that documents the beginnings of 504: https://dredf.org/504-sit-in-20th-anniversary/short-history-of-the-504-sit-in/
I have to warn you that in some places it can take a while to get this set up.  Since you are almost done, it could be a frustrating process.  But if you have any interest in grad school, it would be worthwhile, in the long run.

Does the rule apply to international students?

Yes, as long as the school receives Federal financial assistance. Section 504 provides: "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

I'm so sorry to hear about your struggle. Many people do not understand that major depression is a medical condition and not a personality deficit, which may be why some professors won't understand.
Since you have a diagnosis, you already have made the first step in receiving a disability accommodation. Go to the student disability office and you will talk with a counselor/advocate that will help you develop an accommodation plan. You can also ask him or her to arrange a meeting with your professors so that your professors understand that this is a valid issue for accommodation.
Good luck!


text:
Asking reference letter earlier or later if I need to go mandatory service for my country
I'm currently working in a research institution as a RA, and I'm thinking of asking my professor for recommendation letter for PhD application. But because of mandatory national service in my home country, I have to go back and serve my country for 2 years before going into PhD. In that duration of 2 years, I'll have minimum contact with my professor, if anything.
Should I ask for a recommendation now, given that his memory of me is much more fresh, or should I ask him after I'm done with my mandatory national service, at which I will be applying?
I've heard both cases of arguments:
Pros of asking earlier

Professor will forget the minute details about my projects and my skill (two years isn't that long, but I don't think it's short either, given that he has interaction with many other RAs and students)
It will give him plenty (perhaps too much?) of time to write the recommendation letter when he is free.
It is more likely that he will write a letter for someone that is working for him now, then someone that has worked for him in the past, since he does not have to see me when he rejects my request, but it will be awkward if he rejects my request now when I still work for him.

Pros of asking later

Professor may fear that I may decide not to pursue PhD after that duration has past, and his effort in that letter might be in vain. While I'm confident that I'll apply after that 2 years has past, I cannot give a proof to him.
If I've accomplished anything during the time I was away, then he would like to put it in the letter. In my case, I'm doubtful if I can do any academic work when I'm serving my country, but who knows.

I'd like to hear if there are any other reasons to favor one option over the other, and ultimately to know which option to take.
I've seen related question: Letter of Rec. for future University application but this is quite irrelevant since most answers deal with the question of asking the police chief for letter.
This is also related, but my circumstance is different from the OP in this post.

I would suggest explaining your situation to the professor and asking him to write the letter now.
Later on, if you do manage to do some extra work you can ask him to revise the reference letter. The revisions will be quick and easy, but writing a reference letter from scratch after two years might be difficult.
The professor should not be disappointed if he writes the letter but you decide not to continue in academia. A good reference letter will also be very useful when applying for other jobs.

Agreed! In the past I have asked faculty to write a recommendation letter because I got to know them during my class, but wasn't planning to attend grad school for a few years. They may be willing to keep a draft on file that can be printed out in two years or give you a number of sealed copies that have generic salutations (Dear Reviewers). Many professors would not mind doing this and actually would prefer to write a letter that they can write with ease because their memory is fresh, rather than the difficult task of trying to remember the student's performance years later. The letter will also be of higher quality if written soon!
Good luck!


text:
Why is it that when I tell people outside my university that I'm a PhD student, I am sometimes told that I'm arrogant/privileged/ignorant?
This did not occur before I started my PhD. It does not occur when I simply say I’m a graduate student. I only say this when people ask what I do as a living (I do not namedrop this).
This tends to occur when I vocalize a strong opinion or disagree with another person’s viewpoint. They might say "not everyone has a PhD like you".
Ever since I started my PhD some people keep pinning certain behaviors on me because I'm a PhD student, and therefore I must somehow be arrogant/entitled etc.
To be clear, this has only happened a very small number of times, so I suspect it is not because of my behavior.

Because those people are dumber than you. They are jealous of your intelligence and talents.

I have had this experience, and it continues even after the PhD completion - I ignore it. It is possibly a sign of them expressing their own inadequacies.

That's what I call the anti-Nitschean sylogism. Short version: I don't know what I am talking about, hence I am right. Long version: I don't know what I am talking about. The natural reply would be "I noticed that". But that would be rude, so you are forced to lie "yeah, me neither". Now not only your advantage in knowledge vanished, but the other person has moral superiority: he admitted that he has no knowledge, while you did not confess to the same crime.

Real life examples are "I am not a climate scientist, but...", "You as a physician should know that [some quackery] works", "We did not have/We had to do ... , and it did not do us any harm".

@Jan-ChristophSchlage-Puchta: I seem to be missing something. How is your comment related to this question?

Since it's only happened "a very small number of times", it's probably got little to do with academia. Some people respond to disagreement with personal attacks, and in that case they'll seize on whatever is to hand for the personal attack. If you were a fishmonger rather than a PhD student, those same people would have responded with "What would you know, you're just a fishmonger?".

@O.R.Mapper: What I mean is that the OP's problem has nothing to do with the OP, nor with having a Ph.D., but is the consequence of a general dirty method to win an argument. Since it works, people use it. If someone who knows more than me contradicts me, I accuse them for knowing more then me. And they won't even think I am stupid, but, like the OP, question themselves. Have I been rude? Have I been arrogant? are more common questions then Was everything I said logically sound?

If people attack you for something that you are rather something that you do, it's saying more about them than about you. And yes, you are being attacked for "being a PhD student" rather than what you do ("studying"). Stay away from them if you can. Also, recommended reading is Feynman's experience as a young professor at Cornell.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is an expression of frustration phrased as rhetorical question rather than a real question.

Voted to reopen, because the OP has described a real problem (at least in the U.S.).

This did not occur before I started my PhD. It does not occur when I simply say I’m a graduate student. I only say this when people ask what I do as a living (I do not namedrop this).

As others have commented already, it may just be that one meets nasty people every once in a while. However, it could also be a sign that people perceive you as giving yourself airs - e.g. because you [even unconsciously] put an emphasis on the PhD student rather than on your profession.
Side note: Personally, when people ask me what I do for my living, I say "I'm a chemist" (not PhD, nor postdoc - nor did I answer "PhD student"). People around me answer either by "I'm a PhD student at university/institute/in field" or by "profession" or by "profession and currently working on my PhD thesis", and what they answer is quite context dependent: meeting people outside academia, it tends to be "profession".
Assume you meet a carpenter who is journeyman (= holds a qualification to work in that profession).
Consider them answering "I'm journeyman" vs. "I'm carpenter" or even "I'm pursuing my master [craftsman]". At least to me the journeyman answer would sound decidedly weird, and while "I'm working at my master's" sounds less weird in English than in my mother tongue (because we have different words for the crafts master and the academic master) the expected answer would certainly be "carpenter" unless you are in a context where most people are carpenters. You could also say that the expected type of answer is the one that carries most information.
I think the appropriate answer is quite culture-dependent (and culture being even within vs. outside academia).

This tends to occur when I vocalize a strong opinion or disagree with another person’s viewpoint. They might say "not everyone has a PhD like you".

Others have commented already that this may be an ad hominem attack (who you are rather than what your argument is worth) which tells more about the other than about you.
OTOH, it could also be that the others perceive you as trying to gain [unfairly] by putting weight on your being a PhD student and respond to this. (That would be the equivalent error from your side: again who you are rather than what arguments are worth).


text:
Should I report I might have been snubbed from a paper even if I don't have means to substantiate it?
For my thesis, I did some programming for a project. My supervisor seemed to be very happy with the results when I was there and promised I was going to be in the publication. Problems started when I graduated and moved abroad. My supervisor said they couldn't replicate my results and started pushing me to continue into the project. I left all my scripts properly organized with README files and was available to answer emails and connect remotely to do minor fixes, but I was already fully dedicated to my masters and didn't have time to do extensive extra programming. Indeed, I was doing field work and didn't have access to computers for most of the time. After almost a month in which I was out of reach, I checked my email and found a communication claiming I have stalled the whole project and lead to its cancellation. I let things pass for almost two years, not having much contact with my then coworkers or supervisor, and just yesterday found the paper was indeed submitted around six months after that final communication and taken into publication! And I'm in the acknowledgements albeit for a menial task that anyone could do in a couple of hours!
I can't be sure if there was misappropriation of my work since the code of the project hasn't been published. They might have rewritten the code, but they might have also indeed used MY code or parts of it. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of my work, since I was doing everything remotely in the server and I now fear I wouldn't be able to substantiate my allegation to the editors in case they ask for prove to my claims (I know, I should have kept a copy for myself, but I never expected this to happen at all...).
I noticed some red flags before leaving but didn't think they were of real concern. My supervisor seemed to be resented at me leaving instead of staying in his lab. Although my supervisor is very good in his field, I didn't like the overall way in which he treated us, his students -- he is the kind of supervisor that would yell and call you stupid in front of your colleagues –. This is one of the reasons why I decided to leave the lab and even change field. I don't know if this affected his intention to include me as an author, but in any case, I think they should have informed me I was going to be mentioned in the paper, and they didn't.
Is this among the normal things that happened in academia? Should I tell the editors either they include me as author or they drop any mention of me in the acknowledgements? Also, among the authors are other students for whom I have real appreciation and I don't want to spoil their names in their first publication. Should I let things just pass and be forgotten? (The paper has been published already for more than a year and haven't been cited once. -In my opinion it's a good paper, but not a breakthrough). What would be the normal thing to do in academia?

Was it a PhD, MSc or BSc thesis?

I don't think this is normal; certainly I hope you will resolve not to treat people that way; can you let this be water under the bridge, and focus on learning from the experience (e.g. keep a copy of your work)?

@DmitrySavostyanov BSc

Unless you outright had years of valuable work stolen out from under you that imperils your future career in your field, and you have strong proof of what occurred that would establish to an outsider that clearly something very seriously wrong was committed (way, way past a snub), I'd "count your blessings". From the sounds of it, you have made a clean break from the field, the lab, and most (or all) of the people. There's no huge ethical issues with the paper itself (no fraud, abuse, etc), so you don't have to worry about guilt by association.
You don't need letters from them, you don't need to collaborate in the future, you don't need to even see them passing down the hall. It really sounds like an amazingly good outcome, with the worst-case scenario being you didn't get co-authorship on a paper no one particularly cares that much about. And demanding to be removed from the acknowledgements would make you look like a bit of weirdo, from an outsiders perspective - "give me authorship or don't acknowledge me at all", honestly, will not give anyone a good impression of you to anyone. No upside to be had.
As of right now, from an outsiders perspective, it sounds like did reasonable work as an undergrad, and moved on. You were a bit unresponsive (not checking email for a month tends to be uncommon), but quite understandable given the big changes - though it would not have been cool to be aware of pending collaboration and not even tell your collaborators you are not going to be "online" or reachable for weeks on end. People in the lab may have been disappointed that you weren't more interested in continuing the project to publication, so it sounds like there was some miscommunication, misaligned expectations, and you weren't all on the same page as to where you stood on the project now that you graduated and moved on to something not strictly related. I don't know what conversations you had together, so we can't determine if someone was just being demanding or if you had indicated interest in continual involvement but then effectively didn't follow through. Not our business, but something you might consider for yourself.
Given the lack of major downside, it would be a great opportunity to learn how you might avoid a situation like this in the future, because you'll of course eventually move on from your current position and most people don't perfectly have all work tidied up and permanently finished when they leave. Reflect on how to set clear boundaries, avoid making promises (expressed or implied) you aren't dedicated to following through on, set clear limits to what you are agreeing to, communicate your availability to collaborators, have direct conversations with people to ensure everyone has matching expectations, etc. These skills will be invaluable to your future career, so no time like the present to improve on them, learn from past experience, and build up to a more happy and productive future.

To expand on the last paragraph of this answer, an important lesson demonstrated here is that being present for the discussion of your work is as important as the work itself.  Regardless of how well documented your work was, it's possible for collaborators to misunderstand what you did.  In this case they couldn't reproduce your results, which indicates that additional conversation was needed to identify the source of the discrepancy. Think about it as peer review of your contribution to the lab: you need to convince them your work has value, rather than making them figure it out themselves.

As a BSc student in academic environment, you are the one who is expected to learn and benefit by doing your BSc project (thesis). Academic research is not only about writing the code; in fact, mathematical ideas, numerical results and impact on areas of applications play much more important role. Consequently, the code is usually just a means of achieving the results, but not the main result of the project itself. It is particularly so for partially completed programming projects.
You mentioned, that despite your code contains the README file, your colleagues were not able to use it to reproduce the results and have to abandon all (or most) of it. People would not do this just to annoy or humiliate a colleague who decided to move on to another place. We have to assume that the main reason for them to drop your code was that they were genuinely unable to use the code in your absence, even with a sporadic support over email. This could happen for the following reasons: maybe the code is simply not good enough, or maybe it is actually a nice implementation of the algorithm which is not able to solve the problem at hand (i.e. the problem is not your coding, but the math ideas behind the method).
Despite the limitations the code/method you developed, the process itself definitely provided you with a lot of experience to reflect on and to learn from. You have successfully completed your BSc project and graduated. Congratulations on this achievement!
However, as the publication is concerned, it does not seem to me that your contribution is sufficient to deserve an authorship. You have only contributed to programming aspect, not to development of math ideas and interpretation of results. The code you developed was not used to produce any results included in the paper. You have not actually contributed to writing the paper. If you believe that some of the results included in the paper are yours, you could ask to be included as a co-author. But if you merely suspect that some part of the code you've developed could've been reused  in a new project to produce the results, it is not a valid reason to include you as a co-author. A lot of academic research is based on using someone else's code (open source code produced by community / colleagues) which deserves acknowledgement but not co-authorship.

The conclusion of the paper is something you mention: The algorithm is not able to solve the problem. I must clarify that I indeed did analysis, obtained results, discuss them in a report and made recommendations. My conclusion was that no meaningful information could be extracted. They promised to scale up the analysis to the complete dataset, which needed months of computation, and in the paper they get the same conclusion. They don't copy my discussion and recommendations word-by-word but they essentially say the same I put in the report.

^I might be biased (because it is my own work), but I'd say I did more than just typing.


text:
Posting solutions to textbook problems online
I'm interested in knowing whether there are any legal issues (e.g., copyright infringement) in posting solutions to problems of a (paid) textbook.
I have mentioned these problems in class and did not have the time to thoroughly solve them on the blackboard. I thought about typing up the solutions with an extended discussion on each problem and the concepts employed. However, before I do that, is there any legal action about which I should be concerned? More specifically, I'm thinking about typing them up in Jupyter Notebook-style and was planning on putting those up on a public Github repository.
I had initially typed up the problems as well, but decided to reference to the exercise number in the book, as the "wording" problem itself may be proprietary.
I'm aware that the book has a paid solutions manual to which I don't have access.

If you don't have the solutions book, and are thinking of putting your own solutions online, then there is no copyright concern because it is your own work. You probably shouldn't put the questions online with the answers, though.
(disclaimer: IANAL.)


text:
How to reference an introduction to a text? (Harvard)
I'd like to use the Harvard referencing system to reference a quotation taken from James McFarlane's 1981 introduction to a 2008 reissue of an Oxford World's Classics publication of his Henrik Ibsen Four Major Plays collection.
It contains works he translated from original Norwegian.
I have no idea how to reference this.


text:
When citing a book (Harvard) what should year be?
I always see tutorials on Harvard referencing saying things like:

Last name, First initial. (Year published). Title. Edition. City published: Publisher, Page(s).

What do I need to put for year published?
Is that the year of the book's first publication, or the year that the copy I have was published.

Specifically, I am trying to cite a translation of A Doll's House.
It was originally published (in its original language) in 1879.
This translation was first published in Great Britain in 1994. Reprinted 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 (twice)
Its ISBN number is 978 1 85459 236 1

As always, I highly encourage anyone looking to manually create a citation to instead consider investing in a (free) reference manager like Zotero. Let the software figure out the fancy formatting so you can focus on the content :)

Cite the copyright year

It is a literary piece, not a reference. In many cases you do not even need to cite it, but if you do you either refer to specific translation or the book itself. If the later, original publishing year is good.

Originally published is not translation published is not reprinted. What do you think is important?

@tonysdg but those will still always ask you for the "year" (whatever that means,) unless it's an automatic one that does it by ISBN for example, but using this ISBN number in different generators yields different results.

Why has this been downvoted?

@theonlygusti probably because it's very easy to look up. Actually the answer is already in your question. (see below)

@henning but I had been looking it up and couldn't find anything. As I said, all I found were tutorials and guides saying that the way to reference was to put "year."

@theonlygusti Your example says "year published".

@Sverre copyright year doesn't always equal publication year.

@Karl You cite the year of the edition that you are using, not the original publication year; however, you can provide the original date in addition, separating it with square parentheses or a slash.

@tonysdg Always double-check the metadata that is automatically extracted by reference manager software, especially when you cite books.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@henning Editions are published, reprints usually not.

You write down the year in which the particular book that you are holding in your hands was published -- not any earlier or later reprints, not the first publication.
Since you are citing a literary work, and since that work has been republished many times, the date of its publication is not very meaningful. You may be better off using an author-title format (MLA) rather than an author-date format (Harvard).

Why does Sverre say "cite the copyright year"?

@theonlygusti I don't know and I wouldn't do it. The copyright year does not always equal the publication year.

@theonlygusti The most important reason is that it is the copyright year that will normally appear in library databases. And because it is the most common practice. Henning's answer is a good example of how tricky it gets when you try to apply some other practice. "Cite the year it was published, not later reprints". Well, uh - aren't reprints published? Just cite the copyright year and don't worry about it any further.

@Sverre "the copyright year that will normally appear in library databases" - how do you know library databases don't show the year when the book was published? After all, that's what "publication year" literally means. "aren't reprints published?" - yes, and therefore they have a different publication year. Being able to distinguish between reprints is another reason to stick to the publication year.

I think I'm at a loss at understanding now what you mean by "publication year". But I don't think it's worth while to keep this discussion going.


text:
How to politely take back a request to be on an exam committee?
I need to have three faculty members on my Qualifying Exam committee, with one non-adjunct faculty of my department to be chair. On our department guidelines webpage, the 'non-adjunct' bit was not specified.
I had therefore emailed three professors, two from another departent (CSE), and one adjunct from mine (EE). One of the CSE professors agreed, the EE professor agreed but told me he couldn't be chair because he was adjunct. I therefore got another EE professor to be chair. Now I will have to email the other CSE professor to tell him I don't need him to be on the committee anymore since I've got people already. This wouldn't have happened had I known about the rule for chair.
How do I email him in the politest way possible? He's currently out of country so meeting in person isn't possible.

Be straightforward but tactful about your situation. You have a limited number of spaces on your committee and they are now filled, despite some initial confusion. This is just one of the challenges of assembling a committee and ensuring they're all in one place when they need to be. This additional professor will likely be understanding about that difficulty and will likely appreciate you letting them know about this change well in advance of any necessary committee meetings.

Good answer.  I would add that if the adjunct is going to be back fairly soon, you could just wait until he's back.


text:
Should I apply for the scholarships if I currently have a RA position in my supervisor lab?
I am a M.Sc. graduated and I will start my PhD in September and in a top university abroad (Canada). My supervisor guaranteed a yearly stipend during my studies as long as I am in good academic standing from his own grants.
Recently, department secretary advertised the PhD scholarship competition of the university which covers the stipends of students during their PhD studies. The amount of scholarship is just slightly better than my current RA funding (~2k per year difference), so it is not a major monetary benefit in that. More over, I wondering if accepting the scholarship leads the professor to pay less attention to my project as he is not under some pressure to complete the projects that he did not receive grants for. On the other hand, accepting the scholarship may give the students some degree of security about their funding (e.g. if they find conflicts with their advisor in future and want to change advisor).
All in all, I would like to know if is it a good idea to accept an scholarship instead of the RA funding of the lab you work in?

You should get scholarship if:

You want more money
You want to make your supervisor happy
Self-esteem (because you can self-fund yourself)
Something to put on your resume
Easier if you want to change supervisor
The scholarship is guaranteed (if offered) whereas your lab's yearly stipend is not. Your supervisor only gives you verbal agreement, but she might change her mind. Do you have a contract with her to guarantee your payment for the next 4 years?

Generally, PhD student is expected to secure a scholarship. Your supervisor is responsible to guide you for your PhD with or without your scholarship.
You may ask your supervisor to give you top-up.
You should not get scholarship if:

Your supervisor wants to employ you and pay you salary
You want to work while doing your PhD

Otherwise, why not?


text:
Why do conferences and other academic events still mostly happen offline?
Despite the fact that most of the world is now connected with high-speed fiber and even phones can record 4k video, it seems to me that there is a large focus on offline events. Universities invite guest speakers, hold seminars, organize conferences, etc, and most of the content is not even posted online afterwards. Often the events themselves don't include anything more than the speakers doing their presentations, answering a few simple questions and leaving shortly afterwards - all of which could be done on Skype or a myriad of other platforms.
So why is there still such a strong focus on physical presence?

Your assumptions are wrong, and you seem to be missing the point of conferences and other academic events.

Speakers don't leave shortly afterwards: they remain at the conference venue to talk to colleagues from all over the world, continuing discussing the topics and fostering collaborations. Things that cannot be done via Skype.

@MassimoOrtolano our university often hosts events where an academic speaker gives a 2-3 hour presentation, answers questions for 15 minutes and promptly leaves - the speakers often say they're scheduled at X university in a few days. I assume the speaker does talk to some of the university employees while he's there, but then why give the presentation in the first place? Couldn't you record your material once and then just have everyone watch it on Youtube in advance? If people have questions they can add a comment and you add a few more clips later on to address them.

@MassimoOrtolano and even if you do talk to some colleagues, why not use Skype or some other conversation system? I know people who collaborate successfully with folks across the globe, never once seeing them in person.

Occationally people actually get a chance to talk to someone new at a conference. How would that ever happen online?

@TobiasKildetoft easy. Go on Google Scholar -> see a new paper in your area that interests you -> email the author. Or post on a related website/user group. Or find an interesting presentation on Youtube. At the end of the day only so many people can present themselves at a given physical place, but you can literally access every single researcher's work online.

A conference offers an environment without students, administrators, family, friends, hobbies, or other distractions. You meet people, talk with them, eat with them, spend time with them, and so on, because you don't have any excuses to avoid it. That's what most people need to maintain successful long-term collaborations.

Those suggestions do not even remotely replicate the opportunities to get to know someone in a more social and less formal setting.

A conference offers an environment without students — Oh, God, I hope not.

@JeffE There is an interesting cultural difference here. Where I come from, both bachelor's and masters's students are seen as students, while PhD students are seen as early-career professionals. I frequently forget that for many people an unqualified "student" may include PhD students.

"Despite the fact that most of the world is now connected with high-speed fiber and even phones can record 4k video" - I am still waiting to participate in my first video group call where not at least some of the time is spent on trying to solve one or more participants' connection issues.

@JonathanReez I am assuming that either your university/department is rather bungling the visiting speaker dance or you aren't aware of their full itineraries. Speakers that visit my department for a talk typically have at least 1 dinner with interested faculty, and often have lunch with interested PhD students. The rest of their day they may visit labs, have 1-on-1 meetings with other professors, etc. These are all opportunities to build more informal relationships among academics. Occasionally there may be a travel conflict or delay that cuts a trip short, but that is not the norm at all.

"Despite the fact that most of the world is now connected with high-speed fiber and even phones can record 4k video" This premise implies the false assumption that all the people wanting to attend the event have access to these facilities. There are many places where fibreoptic cables are not installed or are only available at a premium rate. Also not everyone has (or wants) a moder smart phone. On the otherhand, practically every country has an airport and airline service.

@Pharap this makes sense for global conferences but there are many events where all the participants are from e.g. Western Europe.

@JonathanReez Everyone being from western Europe still isn't a guarantee that people have access to fibre optics, fast internet speeds or smartphones. Some rural areas of wealthy/advanced countries like Britain still have internet speeds comparable to dial-up.

@Pharap but do those areas have any significant universities?

@JonathanReez I don't know, but being a university doesn't guarantee good internet connectivity either. The college I went to (not quite the same as university but on the same line) had worse internet capabilities than most people have in their homes (and most people I know would struggle to stream 4K video over their home connections).

Related: How to promote reduction of carbon footprint for conference participation?

Related: Why are conferences so often in Aspen? :-). Cf. http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/84946/why-hold-conferences-in-a-resort-town.

Conferences are not organised for the talks alone. They are more like the academic equivalent of a pool party or a weekend football league. Although on the face of it the purpose might look like spending time in the pool or playing football, people really go there to meet other people.
As a PhD student it took me a while to realise this. Most people attend conferences to get face to face time with other people in thier field, and often the talks act as adverts for collaboration. You'll notice that there are often conference dinners and mixers designed precisely for meeting others.
Every time I've heard someone talk in earnest about what they liked about a conference, it's always that they managed to catch up with a colleague or similar.

Fully agree, the "hallway track" is the reason for face-to-face conferences.

Great answer. Do academics generally acknowledge that this approach is 'old school'?

@JonathanReez, I'm not certain even non-academics would. I'm in industry, working for one of the major producers of telecommunications and collaboration equipment. We still host, attend, and participate in physical, in-person conferences -- one of the last I went to both boosted our prestige (inasmuch as one of my coworkers gave a very well-regarded opening talk on research we're sponsoring) and provided several recruiting opportunities, many of which came through the "hallway track".

However I do wish that conferences videoed the formal talks and that they were somehow attached to the related papers.

@Ian Some conferences do and even post them for free online, like (in my field) the Strings conference on string theory.

I agree with Nathanael's statement. Part of developing a community of scholars is networking. While online activities open new opportunities for networking (for instance, cheaply bringing together people from different regions on a shared platform) there are significant limitations to networking only online.
As researchers, we conduct a lot of our work in isolation - even when we collaborate with others, it is often filled with internet exchanges rather than in-person contact. The in-person nature of conferences and guest speakers gives greater opportunity to have high-quality interactions.
I do agree that it would be helpful if universities and organizations provided more of their organized content online, but only in addition to in-person interactions, not in place of them.


text:
How to find jobs for someone who holds a PhD degree but lacks English proficiency?
Does anybody know how to find jobs for someone who holds a PhD degree but lacks English proficiency?
My mother, who was a professor at a reputable university back in my home country, came to the United States for my education and since then, she has been working as a babysitter and at dry cleaners, and I'm increasingly noticing her misery. She is fluent in Korean and Chinese (native bilingual proficiency), but her English, especially in terms of writing, is on an elementary level. Looking for jobs online that fit her specific situation proved to be extremely difficult. I'm trying to reach out to my professional network, which is pretty small to begin with. That leaves me thinking whether I should look up specific bilingual companies on LinkedIn. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much for your help!

What is her field?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it appears to be about finding jobs outside academia.

I know samsung prefers people that speak korean, for instance, but english would be nevertheless essential in the US. IMHO, step 0: improve the english proficiency...

@DavidRicherby Personally I think it is on topic. It is a question about a situation that concerns university professors specifically.

@FedericoPoloni Non-academic jobs for recent PhD graduates is off-topic, even though it concerns PhD students specifically. How is this question different?

@DavidRicherby If you want a hard rule written in stone on what is on topic and what is not, I don't have it (and I don't think there is / should be one). But to me this feels like it should be on topic because it is a much more specific case. The PhD -> industry transition is a "standard path" covered by many more sources (and by workplace.se, presumably). This one is a very special situation involving a university professor, that they are in because they are university professors.

I vote to "Leave Closed" because this question is unclear to me. The OP has not responded to @FedericoPoloni's inquiry "What is her field?". Once the OP clarifies this, I am more than happy to vote to re-open. Thanks.


text:
What is (if there is one) the equivalent of the tenure-track phase in Europe?
In the US, tenure-track (TT) positions seem a common and natural step in the progression towards an academic career and quite "stable" state-wise in terms of what one might expect from them, in that if nothing goes too wrongly, after the fixed X years in a TT position one can reasonably expect to get tenure (I've heard of  horror stories of denied tenure from certain R1 universities, but I'm more concerned about the generic case here).
Now, I'm in the early stages of my academic career (I'm soon to start my first postdoc) and, more relevantly for the purposes of this question, I'm based in Europe and, unless I have absolutely no other options, I intend to remain in Europe in the future. My understanding of what the "natural" steps to take after the postdoc phase in Europe is, admittedly, pretty muddy and quite scattered.
My question(s) is (are):

Is there an equivalent (step-wise in the progression towards an academic career) in Europe of the tenure-track positions in the US? If so, is this equivalent step "stable" country-wise, or does it change considerably depending on the country? More generally, what is the "natural" progression in Europe after the postdoc phase?

Sorry for the many questions, but most of the advice I usually find is very US-centric.
EDIT: To make the question a bit more specific, I'm particularly interested in France, UK, Italy, and Germany. Also, I'm trying to pursue an academic career in mathematics, so I'm also interested in those aspects specific to the discipline, if there are any such.

This differs a lot, depending on the country. A reasonably complete answer to your question as it stands would be quite long.

@StefanKohl Thanks for the comment. I'll add the names of the countries I'm particularly interested in so to make the question a bit more specific.

If you are from the UK, the other three mentioned countries come with the caveat of uncertainties due to the Brexit; the same holds for the UK if you come from one of the countries which remain in the EU.

Leiden University, like many universities in The Netherlands, has adopted the US tenure track system.

@EmanueleTron I thought it was implicit that I'm interested in the aspects concerning an academic career in mathematics. I'll make this point more explicit in the question.

For Italy, the answer can be found in this question.

In the UK there are four levels of permanent academic employment: lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, professor. These four positions between them are roughly equivalent to the three US positions of assistant professor, associate professor, professor. These days lecturer is often a probationary position for the first few years, but higher positions are permanent. Promotion to senior lecturer does not follow automatically upon being confirmed as a permanent member of staff. Apart from this practice of probationary appointment there is no formal tenure system. In my experience (which is limited to mathematics departments) it is quite unusual for probationary appointments to not become permanent.
In my understanding, not very long ago senior lecturer and reader were seen as roughly equivalent, but senior lecturer was seen as more heavily emphasising teaching and administration whereas reader was seen as a position which more strongly emphasised research. However, there is a developing tendency to see the two positions as having essentially the same nature, with reader simply being more senior.
Some British universities are in the process of adopting the three-tiered U.S. nomenclature, but such universities remain a minority at present.

Although lectureships in the UK typically have a probationary period, I think that it is quite uncommon for people not to have their contract made permanent at the end of that period.  Certainly it is much less of a real hurdle than the US tenure process.

This answer discussed job titles but omits the key piece of information: there is no tenure system in the UK.

I've done my best to incorporate these remarks. Anyone who would like to directly edit my answer should feel welcome to do so :)

Remember that under UK law an employment contract becomes permanent after a length of time (2 years if I recall correctly) even if a permanent contact is not issued.

These things varies a lot by university at one stage (eg being a reader was higher status than a professor in some places where "professor" was a title for head of department for instance.

@Ian (not Ian Morris) do you have a reference for this? Is your comment referring to probationary periods for an indefinite contract, or some kind of extension of a fixed-term contract?

@YemonChoi After two years a failure to renew a fixed-term contract is considered a dismissal, which British workers have some statutory protection against. The idea is to prevent employers from creating an effective permanent position through a succession of temporary contracts, without the same rights that attach to permanent employees.

Bear in mind that "permanent" in UK parlance can simply mean "Not on a fixed term contract". It doesn't necessarily mean you're there for life. (although it's also quite difficult for an employer to get rid of staff in the UK)

Indeed: There is no such thing as "tenure" in the UK, and as such UK faculty, whatever rank, or however long they have been there,  have no more rights to permanency than any other worker for any employer in the UK. However, those rights are substantially better than for the normal worker in the US. As for probation: its getting harder. In my (life sciences) department, two people have failed probation  in the last 3 years, and the conditions for passing probation are not that different from those for tenure at an R1 in the US.

In Germany, the typical career progression after the Ph.D. is either a Habilitation or a Juniorprofessur, after which one can apply to full professorships.
The Habilitation is slowly decreasing in prevalence, with different fields being more or less quick about this process. It is still more prevalent in the humanities, where it often still is "the second book", after the Ph.D. dissertation. In the sciences and mathematics, AFAIK it is more common to collect a number of publications and submit these. This would typically be done in a standard postdoc position.
In contrast, the Juniorprofessur is modeled after the US tenure track. You are supposed to start it right after the Ph.D., or at least not too long after. A Juniorprofessor has pretty much the same rights and responsibilities as a full professor. After two positive evaluations, you are deemed berufbar and can apply to full professorships. Some Juniorprofessuren are actually tenure track, but whether this option even exists is up to the German Bundesländer. Conversely, this means that some - probably most - Juniorprofessuren are not tenure track, but time limited. You can tell a Juniorprofessur by its pay scale: W1.
In addition, there are a few other paths to a full professorship, like the Emmy Noether-Programm.
As above, once you have completed your Habilitation or the second positive evaluation of your Juniorprofessur, you can apply to full professorships. Typically, if you have a larger group or more responsibilities, you'll be paid more (W3 compared to W2), but there are no fundamental differences between W2 and W3 professorships, it's mainly a question of your pay. Normally, W2 and W3 professors are tenured Beamte. Some Bundesländer will not give you Beamter status if you are too old when you first reach eligibility. Then you are still a member of the public service and essentially unfireable, but there are differences in health insurance and social security.
If you don't aim for "real" universities, but for Fachhochschulen, you don't need a Habilitation or a Juniorprofessur. Instead, you will be expected to bring a Ph.D. and five years experience outside academia. AFAIK, most Fachhochschulprofessoren are not tenured, although their contracts are typically not time-limited and essentially for life.
These earlier questions may be helpful: Do professors in Germany have other payment than their standard salary? and Is it possible to write a proposal to get a junior professor position in Germany, when existing openings seem far from my research interests?

I am pretty sure that only one positive evaluation is needed to be eligible for a professorship (at least in Lower Saxony, but I think that this is the same all over Germany).

Juniorprofessur is not modelled after the US tenure track, since there (usually) is no tenure option, i.e. the position terminates after six years. There is also only one interim evaluation, not two.

In French universities, both "maître de conférence" (≈ assistant/associate professor) and "professeur" (full professor) permanent position levels are effectively tenured: they are fonctionnaires, i.e., have government employee status, and as such, enjoy a very high degree of job protection.  The same holds for "chargé de recherches" and "directeur de recherches", which are the corresponding positions in pure research organizations (like the CNRS), with no teaching duties.  Things might be slightly different in other French educational institutions, like the grandes écoles.
There are also a number of non-permanent positions like "ATER", "moniteur" or "vacataire", with contracts for a specific time.

I would also add there is a number of permanent staff scientist positions. They also offer strong job protection, but would make career subsequent progression difficult.

In Italy the tenure-track equivalent position is called RTD-B. RTD-B is an acronym for Ricercatore a Tempo Determinato tipo B. That is to say, fixed-term researcher of type B. The term is three-years, by the end of it you are supposed to have passed a national habilitation based on a few key metrics, and then become Associate Professor (Professore Associato).
The "Ricercatore" title is the italian nominal equivalent of a USA Assistant Professor. I specify nominal because, contrarily to USA positions, you are not expected to start a group of your own, your are not given any research money to do so, you are not expected to supervise BS, MS, or PhD students. You do are expected to perform high-class research; the independence of your research will largely depend on the ability to attract funds on your own. In that regard, your moral standing is more like a Research Scientist in USA, unless you are capable of attracting large national grants, or large AND prestigious European grants. With those funds, you will be able to gather all resources you would need for fully independent research.
You will be expected to teach, and the teaching load will vary a bit depending on the institution that hires you. Typically one course per year, that amounts to 50 to 80 hours of formal lectures, to a typically a large number of students, grading exams scattered throughout the year.
One thing to keep in mind is the selection process. In the USA, an institution will receive several applications, make a short list, and invite the shortlisted candidates for one or two full-days interview. In Italy, institutions nowadays use shortlisting as well, but interviews last only 20 minutes or so. Also, recommendation letters are not needed in Italy, although some places are starting to ask them.

There is now a trend towards offering assistant-professor-level positions explicitly with tenure track. Recent examples can be found for Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg and Germany. This trend seems to be supported by some political initiatives. For example, Germany recently started a program to establish 1000 tenure-track professorships (the so-called "Wankaprofessuren", after the former minister of education Johanna Wanka).

It's a useful answer (+1), but for the record the example given for France is an exception to the rule: "grandes ecoles" such as Mines ParisTech are not bound by the same rules as the regular universities, that's why they can offer this kind of position. Regular universities and public research institutions can only hire on immediately tenured positions (and of course temporary positions, e.g. postdocs).

The Netherlands have 3 different grants, specifically the Veni - Vidi - Vici level of grants provided by the NWO (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek). The three levels work as follows (info taken from here on 4-4-2017):

Veni - For researchers who have recently obtained their PhD - Maximum of € 250.000.
Vidi - For researchers who have gained several years of research experience after their PhD - Maximum of € 800.000.
Vici - For senior researchers who have demonstrated an ability to develop their own line of research - Maximum of € 1.500.000.

None of these grants comes with a permament position perse as all PIs are expected to fund themselves (by acquiring additional funding from various (e.g. EU) sources). However, most researchers that become full professor have used one (or more) of the above mentioned grants while "settling down" in a research institution.

I would appreciate if someone told me why this answer is 'wrong'? I know that the OP illustrates particular interest for some countries but does not rule out the others.

I did not downvote. But, I can explain why you receive that. The question is about tenure track. Your answer is about research grant.  So, your answer is not an answer.

To my knowledge the typical 'tenure' track is very (extremely) rare in the Netherlands. Therefore, I answered the question in a way of 'how would one go about getting a more secure position' in the Netherlands, which is the closest that I can think of that one can get to an answer for this question using the Netherlands as a country. However, if people feel that it doesn't add anything (I will wait a few days before judging that), I will remove the answer.

Please do not remove the answer. That's the reality in the netherlands. Can you elaborate on permanent positions and proffesorship? I heard that it is possible to have permanent position but no grant money to finance anything

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


text:
Developing casual relationship with advisor
I'm currently working for a professor in a research institution. The typical interaction with my advisor is as follows:

Me: Hi! How was your weekend/conference/trips?
Prof: Good. Do you have any results to report to me?
Me: (Frantically take out my report) I've done this, that, and that like what you've told me.
Prof: Good. Keep working on it.
Me: (Immediately leave the scene and get back to work)

While I understand that I cannot force him to have any casual conversation with me, it's bugging me that we talk about nothing but research everyday. I have almost no clue about who he is or what he does outside research.
Based on other questions that I've read in this site, I have a feeling this is a norm in academia, though my relationship with my undergrad research advisor was much more friendlier and casual than my current advisor.
My question is: How can I develop a more casual relationship with my advisor? Is this even desirable in academia?
Perhaps this is just my personal preference, but I'd like to have a more casual relationship with someone that I see everyday and talk to everyday. His office is located 5m away from my workspace, and I report to him 1-2 times a day. We also bump into each other numerous times in the corridor, and exchange awkward hi. I don't like to work with someone if I view him as an authoritative figure that only demands results from me, and I often get fearful to see him or talk to him, which I don't think is healthy.
He is not a super-introvert that doesn't like talking to people, because I often see him laughing, talking, and joking around with other professors. That has never happened between two of us.
Somewhat related, but not really: How to deal with an advisor who wants a “friendlier” relationship with me than I do?
How to maintain a good relationship with advisor when there is no need for it but I want it?
EDIT: This is in US, and he does not have any students right now, though he has had students in the past.

Ignore the fact that he's your advisor for a moment.  How can I develop a more casual relationship with [someone]? You can make overtures in the hope that eventually they're reciprocate, but if they don't want to reciprocate, they won't.  Move on.

Does he have lots of students?  How is he with other students?  Also, what country is this?

I supervise a PhD student who is about my age. While I enjoy casual talk with them during a coffee break, it really bugs me when they insist on casual chatter during and after our work meeting because I am usually very busy and would rather go back to what I was doing before. Perhaps your prof is just trying to optimize time management. Or perhaps they are simply not interested.

You could try to arrange a lunch with him. People are usually more relaxed over food and open up easier. A possible preamble to the offer would be sth like "I am really inspired by A, but I know you are very busy during the working hours. Could we discuss it over lunch?", where A is something that he has written or a skill he has or whatever, relevant to career in academia or research but falls outside the immediate scope of your current work and that you find genuinely exciting.

You stated a key point

Perhaps this is just my personal preference, but I'd like to have a more casual relationship with someone that I see everyday and talk to everyday.

It could very well be that his personal preference to take time to foster the kind of relationship that you describe - it could also be a case of him not feeling comfortable have a casual relationship with his employees/advisees. There is no way to really know how long he has known the other professors that he speaks and laughs with.
You can not and should not force it. This is very important, some people recoil when people try and force these kinds of things.
To be honest, based on the conversation snippet, it sounds like he is not being rude at all, but just is focused on the task and on maintaining positive progress.
It is not a bad thing to have a strong working relationship - a polite and productive relationship is beneficial to many working relationships. I would suggest to focus on that aspect.

My advisor was rather driven.  I suppose if he hadn't been, he wouldn't have accomplished nearly as much as he did.
There were times when he was ready to open up, and times when he wasn't.  Once, for example, he asked me to drive him to the airport.  I went to the wrong airport because he was telling me how he made it through food shortages in the immediate postwar period and it was fascinating.  (It was okay, I realized my mistake and got him to the correct one in time for his flight.)
In contrast, I remember running into him on a Sunday when we were walking up the steps of our building, heading to our respective offices.  I was elated about a concert I had been to the night before, but I could see that he hadn't even taken in what I had said.  He was completely focused on getting to his office and progressing with whatever he had in his head that day.
My spouse is like that too.
Don't take it personally.

Unusual to meet a "driven" person asking someone to drive them to the airport !

@Trunk - Why?  How should he have gotten to the airport?  Note, he didn't drive.  He was a big walker and lived pretty close to campus.  Also, note that the airport was pretty far away and that was before Uber.  He would have had to take a taxi if someone hadn't given him a ride.  Oh, and he was single.

Well, I'd have thought that this driven individual would "just do it" and learn to drive. Oh, and he was single - so he couldn't impose on a presumably 100% dedicated wife ? Ye Gods . . .

@Trunk - He had a cadre of devoted students who helped him out on the rare occasions he couldn't walk where he was going.  He was driven when it came to his science, and for his passion for walking.  Definitely not driven to drive.  More like driven not to drive.

He didn't use his car to promote his scientific ideas like Feynman: https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/may-2014/saving-the-feynman-van

Although it is certainly true that many faculty are socially maladroit, it is also true that there is a definite delicacy in the mentor/mentoree relationship. It is not a peer relationship, and it is far from equal in terms of "power". Thus, even with the best of intentions, it cannot truly be a "peer" relationship, even if "friendly". And I think that it is important, just as in good parenting, that as mentor/superior, one be absolutely sure at all times to be squeaky-clean, and adamantly assume the persona that one knows one should.
Sure, this does not directly preclude "more genuine" personal interactions, but, actually, it is completely mandatory that one stay within certain boundaries.
Some faculty have a subliminal understanding of this, but/and through nerdiness cannot behave in a way that accommodates this complication-to-life. Others clumsily ignore it, and may "hit on" their students and postdocs...
Seriously, there truly are (in my opinion) several delicacies in personal relationships with people over whom one has great power. That enormous power differential is inevitably an elephant-in-the-room, and to pretend that it's not is, for the more-powerful person, violently irresponsible, in my opinion.
So, there is a range of ways your supervisor may be "impersonal", and they are not at all necessarily negative.
(Also, as I have gradually come to understand, substantial age differences do entail substantially different perceptions, and different implicit interpretations of situations... who knew?)

Maybe there are written university/departmental guidelines on staff-student engagement.
Maybe the professor believes that a casual banter with a student is a mere overture to a personal relationship unwanted by him/her.
Maybe the professor has been deceived in the past when he/she allowed the supervisor-student conversation become too casual/personal.
Maybe the professor knows that in academia - as in all work situations - playing the man can be a lazy subordinate's way of rising through the ranks at minimal expense of effort.
Maybe the professor wants you to go out into the world - away from academia - find a person you can truly merge minds and souls with so that your life (and academic work) may blossom as soon as possible.
Maybe all of the above.


text:
Is it ethical for students to consume Adderall during university courses, if they don't have ADHD?
Assume a student in the United States who has access to Adderall despite not suffering from ADHD. Would it be ethical for them to take the drug during their studies?
Assume that the school is within the United States. When answering only the academic side of things should be taken into account – I am fully aware that taking a drug without a proper prescription is illegal.

What do you mean "academic side of things"? i.e. can you be expelled?

@MichaelC. I'm asking what actions could the university take against such a student and if it's ethical to consume the drug in the first place.

Is it ethical to study? Is it ethical to read a different textbook? Is it ethical to just be smarter than somebody else? Is it ethical to drink coffee when others don't or won't? Is it ethical to drink a beer while doing a problem set? Many people ask about 'ethics' here without really thinking through if that is even the right thing to think about. What, really, are you concerned about?

@JonCuster There is a lot of talk in academia about how students 'abuse' drugs to get ahead. I'm trying to understand if it's an actual concern in academia or if it's something implicitly approved/ignored.

But is that an ethics issue or a legal issue?

@JonCuster ethics. The legal situation is crystal clear.

And the ethical situation is as well - students do any number of things that may or may not give them an advantage or make them smarter. If coffee is OK ethically, Adderall is OK ethically.

@JonCuster ok, thank you. Feel free to add that as answer.

@JonathanReez - But is it ethical to break the law? // For certain ADHD cases, I call Adderal "stimulant medication."  In other cases, I call it "speed."

@aparente001 in this case yes, because it's a victimless crime. I'd argue taking drugs is ethical regardless of the legal standing. However academics are a different ethics beast.

@JonathanReez - I am not an ethicist. Perhaps this is the wrong place for these fine distinctions. It would be easier to address your question if you explained where this question is coming from. // Do you consider suicide ethical, in general?  (I'm not talking about special situations, such as a person with an incurable disease and unbearable pain, etc.)

@aparente001 suicide is ethical as well. Cheating on a test is not. Taking doping during a sports competition is not. Bribing the professor to get good grades is not.

@aparente001 I'm trying to understand the current attitude towards such drugs in Academia - it seems that people have a problem with it, but I don't understand what the problem is exactly.

@JonathanReez - I don't understand what the problem is exactly.  Well, I am not a medical expert.  This might be a good question for Health Beta, and/or for your medical provider.  My general impression is that self-prescribing stimulants and certain other medications brings certain physical and mental health risks. // I feel differently about suicide than you do.  But I'm probably not the most objective person for that topic (I have lost a close relative to suicide).  And as I said, I have not made a careful study of ethics.

Just throwing this out there-- if regularly consuming adderall helps you enough that you feel compelled to use it in the long term, how sure are you that you don't have ADHD?

The question could be extended generally to whether other illegal acts are necessarily unethical from an academic perspective. For example, writing a paper on a stolen computer (when your computer is significantly slower or more difficult to use), parking illegally to make it to lectures or exams on time, or studying while unlawfully in the country.

@AlexanderGruber I think the theory is that the medication increases one's ability to tolerate boredom, irrespective of whether one is feeling boredom due to having ADHD or due to being faced with an objectively boring task (the unspoken assumption being that exam revision is an objectively boring task).  I have no idea whether there's any evidence for that theory, nor indeed whether "feeling boredom" is an accurate characterisation of the symptoms of ADHD.

Academia is not a competition, neither is school. It's about education and knowledge. Neither comes and goes with a few pills.
Applying the anti-doping rules from sports is therefore nonsense. What applies are the common workplace anti-drug rules.

So it's okay if the student is not 'high' during classes?

Of course it's not okay. It's probably reason enough to kick him out, but *not reason' to have him fail that class. Total misapplication.

But if anti-doping rules don't apply and you're not 'high' on school property, what makes it 'not okay'?

If you keep the drug off campus (also from your bloodsteam), nothing, except that you are possibly commiting a criminal offence by buying, possessing and handling it. My faculty refuses to graduate anyone with a recent criminal record. Saveguarding their reputation etc. Of course if you only take the stuff in your holidays, there is little point in your original question.

AFAIK amphetamines have a relatively short half life so you could go to classes each morning, get back home, take the pills, and come back clean the next morning. Assuming you don't get caught by police, is it okay to tell your professor you're taking a 'study aid'?

@JonathanReez Herbal supplements are "study aids". Adderall is a prescription psychoactive drug. Calling it a study aid is essentially not telling in the first place.

@David ok, you come to your professor and say 'I'm taking Adderall for your class, in the privacy of my home'. Would that be cause for suspension?

Look, we're  not lawyers here. You'll look like an idiot, you will probably get in trouble with your school (US universities have all kinds of regulations for students private live), but your prof has imo no legitimate reason to have you fail the class. P.S. You taking drugs is your private decision, imo, Forcing your prof to become involved is totally inappropriate.

@JonathanReez It really depends on your school and your local laws. For example, I'm a prof in the US, which means that under Title IX law I am legally required to report sexual harassment. Failure to do so could technically cause my entire university to lose federal funding. I'm not aware of any similar laws for drug offenses, but your school may have a policy in place that requires reporting student drug offenses. At a minimum, as Karl has said, your professors probably isn't going to think highly of it.

@JonathanReez It's also very important to note that even if a professor has no duty to report drug behavior, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from reporting it because they feel they need to.

@JonathanReez As others have already said, check your university policy as to what penalties there are for drug use. A 10-second google search turns up at least one college that specifically states that it can suspend, expel, and report you to the police for drug use on campus: https://www.texarkanacollege.edu/catalog/article/alcohol-drug-use-policy/

@David but that policy is only related to college grounds. They say nothing about taking drugs off-site. It also doesn't seem to be an ethics issue.

It is illegal for anyone to take prescription medication not prescribed directly to them by an authorized medical professional. Universities in the US are not safe guarded from federal, state, and local laws. So if your school found out that you are abusing drugs, they can expel you. You will most likely go through a hearing process where you are offered due diligence.
If you are looking for the policy at a specific school, just visit the school's website and search for their Alcohol and Drug Policy.

Yes, but what about the Academic side? Question slightly updated.

@JonathanReez I think your academic concern is a little misplaced. People wind up in jail for buying and selling prescription drugs illegally. A criminal record is going to affect your life more than violations of school policy, and that's the risk you take when you're engaging in illegal activity.

@David I don't have access to Adderall, nor do I need any. I'm simply interested if taking the drug is 'allowed', 'frowned upon' or 'completely unacceptable'. E.g. can you proudly talk about your Adderall intake with your professor?

@JonathanReez Your professors are going to have wildly different reactions. I have met people who would not care. I have met people who would probably consider it academic dishonesty and cheating. I don't know what I would say if a student told me this, I've never been in that situation.

Your prof will regard you as a fool, never hire you, and probably tell the officials that you are taking drugs on campus. But regarding you as a "cheater" for it is seems to be on the intellectual and moral level of giving the convicted thief a random speeding ticket, imo. ymmv

@David Not necessarily. It is easier to lvie a life of the mind in prison than it is working some menial jobs.

@Karl but if you're not taking the drug on campus it's okay? And why is Adderall worse than coffee, alcohol or cigarettes?

This doesn't answer the question. The question was about ethics, not law. So if your school found out that you are abusing drugs, they can expel you. This is absurd, unless we're talking about Bob Jones University or something. A school in the US is not going to expel a student for using adderall without a prescription.

@BenCrowell It is not absurd. Per Harvard College: "When cases involving drugs and alcohol come to the attention of the College, the College may take disciplinary action against a student, including requirement to withdraw." A number of other colleges have the similar language.

Whether it's ethical or not depends on your own system of ethics. But, a few things that come to mind. Full disclosure: I've never used these kinds of drugs and I'm not a medical doctor.
1) Just like steroids are considered unfair sportsmanship, cognition drugs will be viewed as unfair in academics by people who are concerned about fairness.
2) Taking drugs to artificially enhance your performance doesn't help you in the long run. Do you really want to take drugs your entire life to maintain an artificial level of performance? Things like better study skills, time management, and prioritization will enhance your performance more effectively and will help you through your whole life.
3) Are you going to feel OK with yourself knowing that you didn't live your life on your own terms? Later in life you're never really going to know whether you could have met your challenges on your own.
4) The people who don't want you to use adderall will tell you that there are a range of serious health consequences for abusing prescription drugs, including long-term cardiovascular, neurological, and mental issues. Sacrificing your health for success is viewed as unethical by some systems of reason.
5) Finally, these drugs are referred to as "cognition-enhancers", but the science is still out on whether or not they really assist in anything beyond rote memorization in people without ADHD. Other researchers have suggested that drug use might lead to deficiencies like decreased creativity.

Regarding 2): Didn't Paul Erdős consume amphetamines throughout his whole career?

@JonathanReez I don't know, but don't ask for ethical principles and then suggest that something should be OK just because someone else successful did it. The world is full of very successful but unethical people.

Ok, but otherwise only 1) tries to answer the real question. Do any university guidelines mention stimulants? Can you get expelled for taking them?

@JonathanReez If it is against your university policy then you absolutely can be expelled for it. Additionally, many university policies generally prohibit illegal actions while on campus without specifically mentioning prescription drug abuse.

@JonathanReez, Erdős began using amphetamines in 1971, 37 years after receiving his PhD.

I would point out that a major concern in academics is the sustainability of the practice.
I assume you are talking about undergraduate, but most academics are PhDs. This means (in my experience) we have seen numerous students, classmates, peers, and colleagues drop out of school or the industry, hurt themselves physically or mentally, or (very rarely) hurt others.  We are always concerned about such things, they make us sad.
Use of Dextroamphetamine or other ADHD medications is not problem free - use of drugs that have side effects such as heart problems, paranoia, mood swings, and a strong tendency towards chemical dependence are not seen as sustainable - particularly for those who do not even have the disorder. Nor are the benefits clear cut (as others have pointed out). Students report themselves as 'feeling' like have learned more, but in actuality, it is not clear they are actually learning more.
As such, these people are engaging in a dangerous practice with unclear benefits. I see that the comparison to performance enhancing drugs are good for reasons other than you anticipated. It is not that such actions are "unsportsmanlike" which is nebulous in a learning environment. Rather, the costs are too great and the benefits so unclear that individuals undertaking such a risk is undesirable. Students hoping such substances work for them (when they don't even have the disorder) are too likely to self-destruct and this is not a great learning environment for those students or their peers.

Self harm is usually viewed as unethical.