text:
How to verify academic history and degree?
TL;DR: How does one verify the academic credentials (degree earned, date of graduation) of an individual without their permission or knowledge.

I'm trying to verify the academic history and degree of an individual. I'm new to verifying academic histories and achievements, so understanding the process and responses below would be very helpful to me (and likely others in the same situation).
The individual states he attended University Maryland University College (UMUC) form 1992 to 1995, and earned a MBA degree. Its public information and published in his Linkedin profile.
I attempted to verify though UMUC's alumni services. The alumni service did not respond to my emails or calls. Next, I called the registrar at the University and they instructed me to go to degreeverify.org. degreeverify.org directed me to the National Student Clearinghouse.
I placed an order for the verification with the National Student Clearinghouse. It cost me 10 or 20 dollars. I received a "Thank you" email from them and an email address to use in the future (degreeverify@studentclearinghouse.org).
I believe I am getting a run-around from National Student Clearinghouse. After a few days, I sent an email to degreeverify@studentclearinghouse.org requesting the results. National Student Clearinghouse responded back "The verification results you received came directly from the school and they based their research on the information you provided in your initial request":

I have not received results or an answer from UMUC or National Student Clearinghouse. Additionally, the National Student Clearinghouse stated I should "fax or email a copy of the students transcripts or diploma for verification [sic]". That's what I paid National Student Clearinghouse to do!
I used National Student Clearinghouse's website "Contact Us" page to request their phone number so I could speak with someone. In addition, I made the same request via email. I have not received a reply to the request for their telephone number!
I'm new to verifying academic histories and achievements, and I surely don't understand the run-around I am getting from UMUC and National Student Clearinghouse. My questions are:

Why won't UMUC provide me with a Yes/No answer to the Verify operation?
Why won't National Student Clearinghouse provide me with a Yes/No answer to the Verify operation?
Why won't National Student Clearinghouse provide me with a telephone number to speak with them?
Is this run-around typical for folks who verify academic history and degree?
Do I have any additional options to to verify the academic history and degree?

I'm beginning to wonder if National Student Clearinghouse is a legitimate service. I know National Student Clearinghouse is not BBB accredited. I discovered that after the run-around began.
Thanks in advance.

Is it safe to assume that you are snooping into the UMUC graduate's education history behind their back?

@Mad Jack - yes, but its not really snooping. Its public information on Linkedin. I can provide the URL if you'd like. Would you like it added to the question?

It could be useful information (not the link to LinkedIn, but that you seek to verify someone's education background without their knowledge). If it were on the "up and up," so to speak, then you could just have the individual have their former academic institution send you a certified transcript, which is not plausible in your case.

@Mad Jack - unfortunately, I can't ask this fellow. I'm doing research for a lawsuit. He and his company owes me $56,000 in unpaid wages over a 3 1/2 month period. Once the lawsuit is filed, I will have the power of subpeona and will be able to acquire it without him.

@Mad Jack. And to be clear: I'm only interested in verifying the public information - the dates and the degree. I'm not really interested in classes, instructors, GPA, etc. I believe that would require a release form.

I added a tl;dr that makes it clear that the distilled version of this question does ask questions involving generalizable knowledge concerning academia.

Good point. I'll let you do that edit since you're the OP.

Did you try UMUC alumni services?  They have their directory online at http://alumni.umd.edu  and also
http://www.umucconnect.org/s/710/index.aspx   .  But otherwise I'd suggest hiring a private investigator or lawyer. This is pretty standard ops for them and it helps keep you at arms length.

@RoboKaren - yes, I tried the alumni services last week (both phone call and email). No answer from alumni services. When that failed, I called the registrar office to see if there was a list published online. That's when the college sent me to National Student Clearinghouse.

rots 'o ruck with this, jww.  i wonder how many professors there are claiming, but not holding, particular academic credentials like the PhD.  it ain't zero.  i, personally, do not see the PhD as a "union card" for teaching in a college or university setting, but with the glut of PhD's out there, most institutions do require a PhD before they would consider anything else.  because of that, i am convinced there are PhD frauds out there, and the harder it is to independently verify, the more fraud that turns up.

-1 For  "without their permission or knowledge". You could just ask him.

@scaaahu: The comments make it clear that this isn't an option as it's an adversarial situation (lawsuit).

@scaaahu - its also verifying public statements. The person in question stated it in his Linkedin profile. He has no reasonable expectation of privacy when he made the public claims.

@NateEldredge  I am not a lawyer. I don't know enough about what the OP is trying to do. I don't feel that this site is a good place to ask this kind of question.

@robertbristow-johnson: Employers normally insist that applicants submit official transcripts, sent directly from their universities, making it rather easy to verify their degrees.  I don't think it's likely that many professors have managed to fake their way through this.  The OP's situation is very different as he/she does not have the subject's consent.

What you are trying to do is rather unusual.  In most cases where a degree needs to be verified (admissions, jobs, etc), the person doing the checking has the subject's consent, and normally the subject would just have the university send an official transcript.  In that case the university's "customer" is their own alumnus and they have some interest in being responsive.  In contrast, they have no particular incentive to be responsive to you, and so I'm not too surprised that the process they have is not particularly convenient.
That said, I don't see what you can do except to keep following up with NSC and using their support system.  Or, you could get your lawyer involved, and see if a letter from her can speed things along.
I would note that, while federal privacy laws allow universities to release "directory information" including dates of attendance and degrees, as far as I know, nothing actually requires them to do so.


text:
How to address a doctoral candidate who is ABD (All but Dissertation)? Is "Dr" appropriate?
How does one address a doctoral candidate who completed all his/here requirements except the dissertation? Would they be referred to as Doctor? Or is there another title?
In the past, I believe I've seen "ABD" added as a postnominal in a signature. For example, "John Doe, ABD". But I don't believe I recall reading how to address such an individual.
Related discussions (thanks Nate (or is it Doctor?)):

When can you call yourself doctor?
Proper way to address yourself

I would call them John, unless they request something else.  I usually ask "Do you prefer Mr. Doe, John, 'Hey you', or some other form of address?"

@NotQuiteAnOutsider That's going to cause a little confusion. D'you mind if we call them Bruce just to keep it clear?

If you're from the other half of the planet, sure @David.  Works for me.

You may call then Master John or Mistress Karen if they got their MS/MA/MPhil in the process of advancing to candidacy.

It feels good to finally get to the point where you have completed all but dissertation. But you are correct it is not a degree and can bite you in the butt if you add ABD and it stays there for more than a year or two.

Address them the same way you would address any other person without a doctorate: e.g. in many English-speaking cultures, "Mr. Smith", "Ms. Jones", "Mx. Brown",  or if you are on friendly terms, by their first name.
If they have successfully defended their dissertation but not actually received the degree, this is a bit of a gray area (see When can you call yourself doctor?) but I think "Dr. Brown" is reasonable.

Thanks again Nate. I never commented, but I hold PhDs in awe. I only managed to get through undergrad and grad coursework. So I'm happy to give them lots of credit.

Ad the 2nd paragraph: You can't make a mistake by calling them "Dr" in that case; they should be a bit more careful :)

"ABD" is just silly, IMO, and I'd avoid using it like the plague.  To me, it carries nothing but negative connotation.
First, defending a dissertation is too big to be an "all but".  It's the culmination of a serious academic experience.  I've seen plenty of students get to that point only to have the degree disappear.
Next, the dissertation and the defense is a big step.  Not being able to get your act together to write and defend when you're at the "all but" stage is a sign to academics that something is not quite right.
Finally, even if everything is going perfectly, and you've completed the research and writing it up will take the normal amount of time, then using an artificial title makes it look like you're anxious to have a title.
Long story short, when you start, use "Ph.D. student".  When you've been advanced to candidacy, use "Ph.D. candidate", because that's what you are.  I'll stick my neck out and say that when you've successfully defended and dealt with any corrections and revisions your committee wants handled, but you're just waiting for a ceremony, it might be OK to use Ph.D., but I'd leave it out, and on my CV I'd list Ph.D., with the date defended and the date the degree will be conferred.

I agree. ABD sounds as silly as a Bachelor All But Exams.

What is the difference between PhD student and candidate? I've been using those synonymously.

They are not synonomous @mathreadler.  Advancement to candidacy, at least in most US programs, is a formal step that usually occurs after formal "proposal" of your thesis topic or passing of a qualifier exam.  i.e., a first year PhD student that has zero idea of the exact topic of the dissertation is most often not considered a candidate.

Ok. As far as I know there is no such step of changing name or title in many places in Europe. There may be an evaluation, say after a year after having started if the PhD student is judged reasonably able to finish given the progress during the first year.

@mathreadler: In many places/programs the PhD is split into an initial coursework phase and then a later phase where you have proposed and are working on your dissertation.  This gives rise to a distinction between a PhD "student" (earlier phase) versus "candidate" (later phase).  Note that some countries/institutions/programs do not have this split, and so in those places there is no distinction between these terms (i.e., they are synonymous).

Indeed, I fully agree. I never understood why people are trying to infer titles upon themselves. The title is not important because it only shows what you have achieved. Some people just take it too far I guess.

I use ABD to describe how I exited my doctoral program in Mathematics, but definitely not as a title or something I'm proud of.  sigh

Such a person is entitled to be recognized as a "PhD Candidate", which would follow the name and probably mention the department or emphasis ("PhD Candidate in Electrical Engineering" in my case).  This might be used in a signature block or a biographical sketch.
There is no special honorific to use antecedent to the name, as Nate has already told you.

Before I post my comment I strongly caution one to review the institutional policy regarding this topic. In some program and student code of conduct policies credentialing and use of titles prior to the awarding of the full degree is grounds for dismissal from the program.
Having been ABD for longer than I should have been I can tell you it is not something I wanted to advertise.  It was more like an albatross when I was required to report annually on my progress.
In an earlier post the term “candidate” was discussed. This would be appropriate when presented in a vitae or resume in the educational section for degree not yet completed along with the anticipated completion date.
Example:
XYZ University City, State
Ph.D. Management (Candidate, 2016)
My advice is to finish the dissertation and earn the degree. The satisfaction of being called Dr. or adding the letters in your signature is far less important than the actual work.

I appreciate your answer.  There is no such degree as "ABD," so there is never a reason to add it after a name.  In the academic culture I spent my time in, it was seen as foolish.

A student was dismissed from my own doctoral program after sending out resumes with "Ph.D." after his name, but before he had defended.  This was done quietly but with great finality.

I mostly agree with this answer, but even writing "PhD (Candidate, Year)" as a postnominal seems extremely dubious to me.  You should not be listing postnominal letters for a degree that has not been conferred, even if you parenthetically note that you are merely a candidate.  I would tend to read that as a heavy negative --- i.e., the writer is trying to pass himself off with credit for a degree that is not finished.

in "real life" you'd refer to that person with an honorarium of "ABD" as "hey, you over there!"  "yeah...you with the funny hair."
i.e. almost really really is only valid in horse shoes and hand-grenades.

This seems adequately covered by the very first comment on the question.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
What to wear for a PhD/ MSc thesis defense?
Is it better to wear formal clothes for a PhD or MSc thesis defense or can we wear something as simple as a T-shirt?

Can you clarify presentation? Are you presenting an informal talk on your research, or is this a formal defense?

@Moriarty I am a trainee. I will present what I have done during my internship period at university in order to get my master degree.

So is it a formal defense or not? Either way, it's going to ultimately depend on the culture of your country and department. For an informal talk, your everyday dress will usually be fine. For a formal defense, it might be a good idea to wear a long-sleeved shirt and pants.

@Moriarty of course, it is a formal one.

I think it really depends on the country and culture. E.g. mine was in the hot summer (35+ degrees Celsius). As a girl, I went in a dress (not too formal, but as I usually don't wear dresses/skirts at all, for me it was a big step up). But, I've seen boys present in jeans and T-shirts, jeans and (short sleeve) shirts, jeans with shirts and ties, suit-pants and shirts (and ties), one with a wacky tie, but also several in short pants and T-shirts... and they all defended successfully.

The appropriate attire is the one that won't distract the audience form the content of your talk. Don't try to be original or to make a statement ('I'm a genius, I can dress the way I want' etc.). I think a bit formal never hurts, it shows that you are taking it seriously but ultimately it's highly unlikely that your attire will influence your grade.

If the committee has a decent sense of humour, try a flak jacket and helmet over the suit.

Have you asked your advisor?

Almost anything will be fine, provided you feel comfortable on them. The clothes you are wearing will influence the first impression, but you are going to be talking about your project for at least 20 min, and the confidence and clarity will wipe whatever the first idea was. Make sure they are you feel good on them, and don't use them for the first time this day in case they itch or something (specially important for underwear!).
The right level of formalism is very dependent on the culture and setting, but it is probably not so important. It will also depend on whether the event is public or not: if the audience are going to be the people that have been seeing you in normal clothes all year round, or if the public is going to attend and the University wants to shine.
 Of course, a frock and a top hat or just a swimming suit will look ridiculous, but anywhere in the middle would work.
For reference,
I have been present to two PhD defences in Sweden (where they are quite lax in formalities). In one, the doctorand was wearing plain business-like clothes, slightly more formal than a normal day; in the other, he was wearing a normal shirt, quite less formal than his normal attire. And, for the record, both passed.
Edit:
Jigg is right in pointing that some universities do require a certain dress code. In this case, it will probably be clearly stated by the centre. Being rejected is possible, but extremely unlikely, as it can get the university in all sorts of legal troubles. Also, these regulations can get to absurd levels (the story seems to be a legend, but the third comment may be legit).

+1 for formalism depending on the setting. A friend of mine who got his Masters in an Italian engineering school was dismissed from the exam before saying the first word because he didn't wear a tie.

@Jigg really ??????!!!!

@begueradj a doctor told me that in his first day of work in a hospital in the UK he was sent back home for the same reason; being a pathologist, so he never interacts with alive patients. In cases like Jigg's friend (very uncommon, I must say), the school should specify the dress code somewhere.

Yes, it's an anecdote. I doubt it was an official university dress code, just the opinion of an old prof with a penchant for conservatism.

That Cambridge story is an urban legend http://www.snopes.com/college/admin/cakesale.asp  But I know some professors (all of them old) where I wouldn't try to go for an undergrad exam without a suit. Not to mention final defences, everyone wears a suit to them here.

At Oxford vivas (defences) count as examinations, and full academic dress is required, meaning a dark suit, white shirt or blouse, white bow tie or black ribbon, mortarboard and gown. This is, of course, made very clear to candidates beforehand, though.

Think of it as a job interview, but actually much more important than that.  There is such a thing as unconscious bias - first impressions count and you should therefore aim to make a good one.  If you look professional, then they will think you are professional, and are more likely to trust and believe in you.  It may not be fair, but that is how it is.  I recommend being smartly dressed.

But keep in mind that in some fields, "professional" means a new T-shirt.

In job interviews it's actually a mistake to dress up fully formally for jobs (like software) that don't require it. Your grad student culture has a range probably from t-shirts to business casual.
I do think it's important to say, "Hey, I'm taking this seriously, this is a serious occasion, and I'm prepared." Comfort is the other important thing.
In one sentence, wear something in the top third of your wardrobe, but not in the top tenth. Smarter/sharper is good, fancy pants dinner or gala attire is bad.
That being said, here's my attempt at male fashion advice (sorry, I can't really help the women here too much) if you really do feel like a more detailed breakdown will help you.

Street shoes (c.f. sneakers)
dark wash jeans or slacks
collared shirt tucked in, or similar such as nice sweater
belt
neatly shaven to your level of grooming (beard or clean okay, just whatever
you wear)
not looking like you "need a haircut" but don't get a fancy or special haircut. Wear your normal accessories, whether it be watch or necklace.
If tattoos are part of your look they've got you this far, don't worry about covering them or not ("within reason").
Try not to look like a sloppy student who never dresses up: wear clothes straight from the cleaner.
A tie if you like, in my mind I picture that as a nice addition but not necessary.

I think a jacket is too much: it will make you look too "other" compared to the professors. If you over-dress you will make yourself look "on the spot" more than you already are, and who wants that?
This might sound too analytical for fashion (unless you're really into fashion in which case it sounds fun!), but this shouldn't sound daunting. Just dress normal, normal, normal, nice.

+1 for "wear something in the top third of your wardrobe, but not in the top tenth".

What about a suit or a bow tie instead of a tie?

You can wear something as informal as a t-shirt and, as others have said, it probably won't swing the decision one way or another. I've seen very informal defense dress from passing students. That said, most people dress up at least slightly more formally than normal and many wear business attire. If you're extremely uncomfortable or resistant to dressing up, don't worry too much. Otherwise: Why not?
Showing up wearing a suit and tie or similarly formal business attire is a strong signal that you are taking the defense seriously. Although they're not everything, first impressions matter and formal dress can also help you look (and feel) authoritative, knowledgeable, and a way you can show that you've taken the time to be prepared.
I am extremely casual on a day-to-day basis but I wore a suit for my defense. Although my own advisor teased me that my defense was the first time he'd seen me dressed up, the fact that he knew that I rarely dressed that way made it very clear how seriously I took the process. Would I have passed anyway? Sure. But even if the effect is one person challenges you a little bit less in the Q&A, that could be worth it.

This answer is probably rather country-specific. In Germany, I have seen an MSc student show up for his (CS) defense in a business attire exactly once, and by that, he made (later, in his absence) the whole department laugh about him because he was hopelessly overdressed (both compared to other students and compared to everyone in the department ...). We seriously wondered whether he was trying to be funny in a weird way. (That applies only to defenses by students, though; for PhD defenses, things are very different.)

@O.R.Mapper: I'm in the US and my opinion is pulling mostly from my experience. It's also going to vary based on the culture of the school and place in general. Folks dressed up for more defenses, and in general, at MIT and in Boston than they do at the University of Washington and in Seattle.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава

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


text:
Is it acceptable for me (an undergrad) to call professors and other research professionals by their first names?
I'm a second-year undergrad, and I've always been on a first-name basis with anyone in academia or in a research setting. I first worked in a laboratory in high school, and since everyone was on a first-name basis with everyone else there, I sort of just applied that logic to other labs and to my college professors.
But when I was talking to a researcher (my "supervisor", if that's relevant) at the lab I'm currently interning at this summer, one of my fellow interns told me afterwards she thought it was "odd" and "unprofessional" to call him by his first name. I understand where she's coming from, but if this were any other type of environment (say a business office), I think it would be awkward to call my boss anything but his first name (Mr. X seems a bit too formal for the boss-employee relationship).
For what it's worth, my boss doesn't seem put off by the way I address him, and I don't think my professors are, either. Maybe my perspective's a bit skewed because of how I was introduced to the scientific/academic culture. Am I out of line here? What did you call your professors/advisors/bosses as an undergrad?

Some want to be addressed as "Herr Doktor Professor Katzenellenbogen, sir"... and some just want to be called "Fred". ASK THEM. If their answer confuses the other interns... well, that's the other interns' problem, and their fault for not asking. (Common practice varies by country, by field, by school, by lab, by individual. Don't assume. ASK.)

As far as problems undergraduates may face are off topic, I suggest to make it more specific.

How would an intern (i.e., somebody who has almost no prior experience in the situation) have any idea what is or is not "professional"?

@Parsa this is the type of undergrad question that I believe is on topic: http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/754/undergraduate-questions

@In some countries, it would be weird to ask and it would be expected from you to be formal, except if the professor explicitely asked you to call him by its first name.

So many different variants of this question, and they all have the same two reasonable answers: "do what everyone else is doing" and "ask". Seriously, do you imagine that there is a secret Book of How to Address People that everyone is hiding from you?

In Sweden, we call everyone but the King and Queen by their first name :)

@Parsa The question is not off topic per se, but it's already been answered well enough a few times before.

This question seems not a duplicate of Should your PhD students call you by your first name? as this is about an undergraduate student and that question is about a Phd student. The way graduates and and undergraduates talk to their professors is completely different. Moreover this is asked in an undergraduate student's point of view and that is asking about a professor's point of view if he likes to be called by first name by his PhD student or not. Why that is a duplicate of this?

As I have said other places, I think the issue is not "first-naming" itself, but tone-of-voice. To express respect or politeness by tone is possible even if speaking very informally, and it is equally possible to be rude while speaking formally.

I think After initial contact, how long should I address a professor as “Dr. Smith” or “Professor Smith”? is a more exact duplicate, as it doesn't specify who the asker is (undergrad, PhD student, peer) and the answers apply generally to all of these.

Just so you know, if there were anyone else around at all, anyone, I would never refer to my boss (at work) as anything other than Mr. Smith.  It would be both awkward AND unprofessional to do so.

@ff524 I also think that After initial contact, how long should I address a professor as “Dr. Smith” or “Professor Smith”? is a better duplicate instance of this question.

In all the years at the university, I only called the professors and lecturers by their last name and a doctor prefix. I also used to call them Professor + Last Name.
But never by their first names as far as they were older than me, they were professors and more important, it was not a custom in the universities I studied to call professors by their first names only (it was somehow impolite to call a professor by his first name only, even by other professors or colleagues).
It usually goes back to the custom. Sometimes the professors themselves prefer to be called by their first names. See how others call professors and see if it is polite or not. But my prefer is always Doctor + Last Name.

It depends on the institution and departmental/lab culture. At my current university, most undergraduates refer to faculty as Prof. Lastname.
I dislike formalities, but it had been very difficult to break the students of this habit. Furthermore, I wonder if I am doing them a disservice as most faculty are VERY adamant that undergrads use their titles, even the point of telling  TAs to use title and last name when talking to or about them in front of students.
Doctoral students are generally on a first name basis with faculty. Master students seem to be split.

This question is very hard to answer in a general way because it heavily depends on the country, culture and specific persons involved. For example:

During my PhD and postdoc I was on the first name basis with my professor and supervisor.
A postdoc from Austria I worked with could use his professors first name, but only when no other staff members of their institute where present.

It is important to get a feel for the general atmosphere of your institute, do other people use first names for example. And you can simply ask your supervisor/professor.

Note that the OP is an undergraduate and is specifically asking about undergraduates.

It is the intersection of the professor's preference and what you are comfortable with.  My dissertation advisor asked me to call him by his first name long before I was comfortable with that.  But he asked me to call him George, so I did.  On the other hand, when one of my former students joined our faculty a couple of years ago, she kept referring to me as "Dr Clason".  I told her, "I'm Dennis."
I'm comfortable with whatever my students are comfortable with.  Like RoboKaren, I don't like to stand on formalities, and just like everyone else, I have preferences.  I'm old enough now that my undergrad students (especially) are not my peers and are not usually trying to become a peer.  I prefer that they use my surname, but I don't require it.  One thing that does grate  (on me, and I am not sure why) is students referring to me as "Mr Clason".  I earned that doctorate, and in academia the title is relevant.  In academia, if you are using the surname, please use the title.  Truthfully, though, I cherish the title "Professor" more than "Doctor".

Yes, it's Prof. Evil, we didn't spend six years in Evil University to be called "mister," thank you very much.   p.s. I hate being called "Miss/Ms. Lastname" -- what are we, in grade school? The only exception is if the speaker is a southerner.

You went Zzyzx University, too?  More seriously, I wish I understood why the "Mr" thing bugs me on campus.  It doesn't bug me off campus: in fact, I prefer not to be identified as "Dr" off campus.

At the liberal arts college that I started my career off at, our office doors had our names on them, but using "Mr." and "Mrs." -- so "Mr. Applebee" or "Ms. Friday." Very odd. Same thing at the faculty meetings when the Chair recognized people to speak. But otherwise on campus, the faculty went by Prof. Applebee and Prof. Friday.


text:
Combined degree in the UK for a US Student
In a recent conversation with a person born in the UK, he mentioned his son had attended a US college for a year before deciding to move back to the UK to finish school. He told me that apparently if a student completes one year of school at an accredited US university, they can do a combined bachelor's/master's degree in the UK in, as I recall, only an additional three years. Apparently that was what his son was doing.
I unfortunately neglected to ask him for more information regarding the process or where I could find more information online, and have no way of contacting him. A friend of mine and I have been looking into moving to the UK after college anyway, and I recently remembered this conversation and wanted to look into it. We're about to be entering our first year of college in the US, and are considering doing precisely what the man said, completing this coming year and then attempting to apply there for the remaining three years. Not only would it get us to the UK sooner, but it would also be good for costs considering how much cheaper college is in Europe.
Is anyone else familiar with such a system and at least where we could go to begin researching it? I've tried looking online but have, as of yet, found little real information. Or is it just that the information I got was faulty and there is no such system?

Are UK universities significantly cheaper for international students? For non-EU residents tuition fees are generally ~£15-20000+ per year. Other places in Europe are definitely cheaper but not necessarily the UK.

Unless you are a EU citizen, you may want to think about immigration issues before going down this road. It might be worth looking at expats.se.

Apparently this is possible but it is at the universities discretion whether your credits are sufficient for entry into the 2nd year. Kingston Uni has some vaguely useful information on their website. In particular applications should be done via UCAS.
I would research some places you would be interested in applying for and contact them directly to see what their policies are. I suspect higher ranked institutions are less likely to accept your credits as sufficient (although I may be wrong).
As pointed out in the comments other things to consider if you are not a EU citizen is visas and tuition fee's. Tuition fees for non-EU students can be significantly higher than for home students (£9000 per year). A quick look at 3 unis gives international fees of:
Kingston Uni: £10750-12350
Brunel Uni: £13000-16000
Imperial College: £22900-25500
Notice the more prestigious institutions are more expensive. When you consider the reduced amount of financial aid (loans, etc.) for foreign students the UK may not be cheaper than US.

That is an incredibly useful answer, thank you. I'll give it a bit just to make sure no one comes up with a better one and then probably mark it right. And also, to be fair that puts Imperial College at about my current cost (at a smaller public university) and at about half my friend's costs. So it may still be cheaper.

In the UK, a bachelor's degree lasts three years, and the there are some undergraduate masters degrees available that last four years.
If you complete a year of study at a US university, some UK universities may accept this as enough experience to let you transfer into the second year of a UK degree.  This depends upon how closely aligned the two courses are, and how well you performed in the first year.
The other option to consider is that many US degrees include a year of study in another country.


text:
What does it mean by "Follow-up Masters"?
I see various universities in Czech Republic and Netherlands offer a type of Masters degree called "Follow-up Masters".
What does "Follow-up Masters" actually mean?

I can't speak for the Czech system, but in the Netherlands a follow-up master is a master program specifically designed for students who completed a certain bachelor program.
All students who graduated from that bachelor program (and selected similar programs at other Dutch universities) are accepted into the master automatically. If you did not graduate from one of these bachelor programs (for example, because you studied abroad), you have to apply to the university for a certificate of admission (bewijs van toelating). In that case, the university decides whether you can be admitted anyway, can be admitted after following a so-called homologation program1, or cannot be admitted.
One reason these programs exist is that the introduction of the bachelor-master system in the Netherlands is quite recent (2002). Before, universities offered longer (~5-year) programs that resulted in a degree comparable to a Masters. With the introduction of the new system, many universities simply split their existing programs into a bachelor program (typically 3 years) and a "follow-up" master program (1-2 years).

1 The University of Twente describes homologation courses as:

Homologation courses (bridging courses) are advanced bachelor courses that you will have to follow if they contain essential knowledge for your master’s programme. [...] The courses depend on the chosen specialization and they have been selected by the Admission Committee.

The same process is used in Germany, except they're called consecutive if they require the bachelor's degree in the same field, and non-consecutive when they don't.


text:
Interpretation of "GRE subject test is required, but your application will be considered anyway"
In the US, many PhD programs require applications to submit the results of one of the GRE subject tests. For example, almost every (serious) PhD program in mathematics that I've seen requires it. However, when looking at the admissions webpage of some programs, there sometimes seems to be some kind of grey area when it comes to the subject test.
For example, on Harvard's webpage for the mathematics PhD program, it is written that:

The Department requires all applicants to submit GRE Mathematics Subject Test scores. Applicants should check on the ETS website for test dates in their area to insure the scores will be submitted before the application deadline.

So far so good, and if they left it at that, the message would seem to be: "you have to submit the GRE subject test, otherwise your application will be incomplete and rejected outright". However, it goes on to say:

While the admissions committee reviews all applications submitted by the deadline, missing math subject test scores are one less data point available to evaluate the application. Depending on the applicant pool and the strength of the application materials, the missing subject test scores may put the application at a disadvantage.

How should one interpret this? Does it mean:

"We thank you for the $105 donation, but your application lacks critical information and will almost certainly be rejected"; or
"Your application will be considered, provided it somehow demonstrates that you have a sufficiently strong mathematics background to succeed in our program"?

One one hand, it seems possible that they would want to "consider" applications without the GRE subject test, in that they receive the admission fee and that they can discard the application with very little time and effort (after all, they said the GRE was necessary). On the other hand, it seems silly that Harvard should reject an applicant who, by all accounts, seems to be this generation's Terence Tao, for the simple reason that he did not take the GRE subject test.

This is certainly poorly and confusingly worded, but I think I can explain the reasoning based on similar issues I've seen with other departments.  Here's my interpretation:
The department expects every applicant to take the GRE subject test.  However, they know that every year a small fraction of the applicants screw up and don't manage to register in time to take it in the fall.  It's impossible to take the test at the last minute, so at that point there's no way to fix the situation.  The department doesn't want to automatically reject these applicants, for exactly the reason you mention (what if someone's the next Terry Tao?), and they are worried that if they list the GRE as an absolute requirement, then the university administration might force them to do that.  On the other hand, they also don't intend to offer applicants the discretion to decide for themselves whether taking the subject test would strengthen their applications.  They want everyone to take it, with the possibility of forgiveness for outstanding candidates who screw up.  These goals get combined into the confusing statement that it's mandatory but your application can still be considered without it.
I don't know how the Harvard math department evaluates applicants with no GRE scores, but I can tell you how my department does.  We're a little happier if we see an apologetic note about how the applicant intended to take the test but failed to do so in time, but of course we know such a note proves nothing.  Our default assumption is that the applicant was worried about doing poorly, so we start asking questions like "How badly would we guess they might have done?" and "Would we have accepted them anyway, even with low GRE scores?"  If the application is otherwise fantastic, then the chances of acceptance remain good.  However, these are the cases in which we would have cheerfully made excuses for low scores (maybe the applicant just isn't good at standardized tests or had a bad day), so nothing is gained by skipping the exam.  An otherwise marginal applicant with no GRE subject test score will be rejected, and a strong but not fantastic applicant will be at a disadvantage.
So my best guess as to what the policy means in practice is something like "if you don't take the exam, we'll be annoyed at your irresponsibility and we'll evaluate your application with a presumption that you wouldn't have done well on the exam, but we'll still consider admitting you."  This means you have a strong incentive to take the exam if you can.

On one hand, it seems possible that they would want to "consider" applications without the GRE subject test, in that they receive the admission fee and that they can discard the application with very little time and effort

In a typical U.S. department, application requirements and graduate admissions decisions are handled pretty much entirely separately from application fees.  For example, many people on the committee won't even know offhand what the current application fee is or where the money goes within the university.  In particular, whoever wrote the policy about GRE scores probably wasn't thinking about application fees at all.

This is pretty much also how my department works with the GRE subject tests.

The answer by anonymous mathematician seems essentially correct to me.
One thing to remember is that (in all math depts. I'm aware of, including Harvard's, and mine) grad admissions are reviewed by a faculty committee, who have nothing to do with imposing/collecting application fees and so on --- so there is certainly no correlation between department rules/guidelines and things like fees.
The committee members will do their best to assess candidates based on all the information they have available, using their best judgement as to how well the candidates will perform in their program.  At Harvard in particular, they have their pick of the very strongest candidates from all over the world.   GRE's are just one small component of their evaluation process, but are useful --- if someone doesn't do very well on the GRE, this is a flag.  Essentially all the students admitted by top programs such as Harvard will have gotten close to a perfect score on the GRE subject test, though, and so the GRE serves more as a negative indicator against admission (if a candidate didn't do we'll) than as a positive indicator that someone should be admitted.
But of course occasionally someone who is unquestionably very strong will have done poorly on the GRE, or not done it at all, and the department will want to have the option of being able to waive it as any kind of formal criterion.  Hence the slightly ambiguous wording on their website.
(One thing to remember is the once the dept. committee makes its selection, there is a bureaucratic process within the university where the list of admitted candidates has to be given to/accepted by other university entities, such as the university's graduate school.  The department probably has to give some explanation/justification for its selection, and some discussion of the criteria it used.  The GRE is presumably one of these, but they don't want to put themselves in a straitjacket of not being able to ignore it in special cases, and hence --- as Anonymous Mathematician notes --- they have a slightly ambiguous, flexible, policy.)

"Essentially all the students admitted by top programs such as Harvard will have gotten close to a perfect score on the GRE subject test." I've known enough students with less than near-perfect scores who got into top programs to be pretty sure this isn't true.  What I expect is true, though, is that essentially none of the students admitted by top programs have "poor" scores.  So your point stands.

This is not a grey area. This is simply a contradiction. The first paragraph you've shared says it is required and the second sure seems to imply that they are only strongly recommended.
Since it's easier to use the single word "required" accidentally and sloppily than it is to write that second paragraph by accident, my guess would be that they mean that the subject GREs are only strongly recommended, not required.
Let's be very clear though: The opinion of people here doesn't matter. The specific departmental admissions officers and committee are the only opinions that matter since they will make the decision. If you see contradictory information on their website, point it out to them and ask for a clarification. They will clarify the issue for you and probably even fix the page.
Finally, even if something is "only" very strongly recommended, it's still strongly recommended! Top programs are extremely competitive and it's up to you to do everything you can to strengthen your application. You might be the next generation's superstar but unless you've already done incredible, it can be extremely hard to tell this. Fantastic scores on the subject GRE can help make your case. Not doing it at all might suggest some insecurity on your part that you might not do well. Take the test unless you have an extremely good reason not to.

There may be a conflict between the department and overall admissions requirements. For example in my Masters program the professors asked the admissions board to waive the GRE requirement for a strong candidate who applied too late to schedule the test (rolling admissions). However this was a unique situation and they would not have appealed the process unless the student in question was an extremely strong candidate (I believe that the GRE scores were out of date not missing, and that said student already had an MBA).

How is it a contradiction? "Required" does not specify the penalty. I've had classes where attendance was "required"; this didn't mean that you failed if you missed a class, merely that you lost some points. And I'm sure the police believe that obeying the speed limit is "required", but in practice, most people don't (in the U.S.).

@ruakh It seems to me that in the context of graduate school admissions (or similar competitions, like job applications), it is reasonable to assume that "condition X is required" should stand for "for your application to be considered, condition X must be met". I don't think that the penalty for not including other "required" items in a graduate application (transcript, letters of recommendation, statement of purpose, etc) is in any way ambiguous. As for the speed limit example, if you get caught disobeying the speed limit, you most definitely will suffer the penalty. Most people don't...

...obey the requirement because they know they won't get caught. If you disobey a requirement in a graduate admission, you  will get caught.

@RaisinBread: I don't think so. There are requirements, and then there are requirements. For all that we complain about bureaucracy and "process police", human systems generally allow some degree of flexibility and personal judgment. (And, no: trust me, speed limit laws are not strictly enforced in the States. It's not just a matter of catching people. Cops generally won't bother pulling someone over unless they're going at least 10 over -- sometimes more -- and even when they do pull someone over, they often issue a warning rather than a fine.)

@ruakh, At the very least, I think it is ambiguous enough that you should ask for clarification. As I said in my answer. :)

There is one more option that (I think) has not been mentioned. I know of schools where exam scores are absolutely required, but students are sometimes accepted even though scores were not yet submitted. At these schools, the student can be given a "conditional" acceptance, and has one semester to submit the required scores. If the student still doesn't have scores on file at the end of that first semester, the graduate school will not allow them to continue attending.
The same sort of conditional acceptance is used for students who need to submit final transcripts after they graduate from their undergraduate program. In most graduate programs, all students are required to submit final transcripts, but students can be accepted conditionally before the transcripts are received.
This kind of situation is suggested by language such as

While the admissions committee reviews all applications submitted by the deadline, missing math subject test scores are one less data point available to evaluate the application.

Note "submitted by the deadline". The school might decide that they will accept some students who don't submit GRE scores by the deadline, while still requiring that the students must eventually submit GRE scores.  This allows the department to use the scores for statistical purposes even if the scores were not always used for admissions purposes.
This sort of conditional admission is related to a scheduling issue with the fall subject GRE. This year (2014), the last exam date is October 25, and scores are estimated to be mailed "approximately" on December 5.  This is just barely enough time for students who apply to schools with a January 1 deadline and send the scores from the October exam immediately. If a student delays sending scores to a school, the scores might not arrive in time for a Jan 1 deadline.  This is likely part of the meaning of the language

Applicants should check on the ETS website for test dates in their area to insure the scores will be submitted before the application deadline.

Students who send their scores a little late would probably be worse off if their application was summarily denied than if it is reviewed with missing GRE scores.

If a school has a January 1 deadline for applications, the reviewing of the applications will take until at least January 14 (probably later), and scores that arrive early in the reviewing process will be taken into consideration. The faculty are not going to sit down on January 2nd, and spend 48 hours straight deciding on graduate admissions.

We as applicants must take a decision whether to include GRE subject or not wisely. First, we must do our best to fulfill all required documents (including the recommended ones). But if we failed to do so for whatever genuine reasons and we do not want to waste another year of waiting (if you have no problem waiting for another year, then you can get all advantages by providing all required documents), then we must write to the Graduate admission and explain the situation. Perhaps, they can give a conditional offer. If they have no solution to this problem, then don't waste your money for application fee.  Alternatively you can search for universities which do not require the gre subject test (there are few good universities). Or you choose an alternative schools, for instance instead of applying admission to Maths Ph.D course, you can apply to Computer Science Ph.D course (pnly general GRE required). They are very much similar and they usually have inter-disciplinary program.


text:
How much would I have to publish to get an entry-level job?
*Edit in response to comments: I'm not asking "What is the number of publications n of quality q1 such that anybody who has n many publications is guaranteed to get a job at a school like Y?" There is no such value of n. What I'm asking is, "Is there a number of publications n, of some quality q such that without n many publications of quality q, one will likely not get a job at a school like Y?" I realize the title is misleading.
This is in response to a conversation that developed in this thread.
I would like to hear from academia.SE members who have been search committee members on a junior search. How many publications, and of what quality would be required to get a job at different kinds of universities?
Let's say for the purpose of this exercise that we are in the U.S. and that there are five kind of universities.

2 year community colleges with incredibly heavy teaching expectations (4/4+)
4 year public or private colleges with heavy teaching expectations (3/4)
Elite small liberal arts colleges with moderate to light teaching expectations (2/2 - 3/3).
Non-elite state universities with graduate programs and light teaching loads (2/2).
Elite universities with little to no teaching (1/- or 1/1).

It would also be helpful if respondents would identify which discipline they are in.

Answering to "How much publication required" is so opinion based and varies from one to another. As, one person may have only one paper published in a journal with high impact factor and another has paid to publish more than twenty papers in very low quality journals. Can you compare these two? Your question, in my opinion is both opinion based and broad.

This is why the question explicitly includes consideration of quality as well as quantity of publication.

The quality of each paper and a person's resume is not a mathematical formula, each person should be assessed based on his own CV.

Couple of comments. Obviously you shouldn't take those categories as definitive; you can find examples spanning all the boundaries you've laid out. At public research universities the nominal load is often higher than you've listed it with release time for those who have grants (or an arrangement with the department like reduced teaching for the first couple of years to get a lab up and running).

@Parsa nobody is evaluated neutrally, objectively or fairly. In an ideal world, everyone would read every part of your application carefully, do background research and work carefully through your unique strengths and weaknesses. But people don't do that, because they don't have time. Therefore people use proxies, like the quality of the journal you publish in to determine whether you are worth a detailed look.

@dmckee Yeah fine. It's a generalization. Nevertheless, generalizations can be useful.

Elite universities with little to no teaching (1/- or 1/1). — There is no such thing as an elite university. There are only elite departments.

@JeffE Harvard's pretty good at pretty much everything, but your general point is correct. You're at such a department, can you tell us more about what you're looking for, publication-wise in a new CS prof?

nobody is evaluated neutrally, objectively or fairly — I agree with the first two, but strongly disagree with the third.

I didn't mean to suggest I was objecting to the categories you've laid out. I think it is as good a list as you can expect given the chaotic nature of higher education in the US. Rather I was just noting that there is a college for every taste.

@JeffE If the process isn't neutral or objective, how exactly could it be fair?

"Fair" to me means only that all applicants are reviewed by the same criteria. Those criteria cannot be objective, because there is no objective standard for good research, even within a single subfield, and they cannot be neutral, because they necessarily depend on the needs and goals of each department.

@JeffE A process is "fair" just in case every equally qualified applicant has an equal chance of success. A process is "just" if the person who deserves the job gets it. Notice that "fair" != "just" because in general nobody deserves any job. Justice doesn't come into it. So, I'm not saying that just because the hiring process is unfair that this means necessarily that somebody has done something immoral. But, looking at the process you've described below, you can easily imagine two candidates A and B of equal quality where A has a champion on your SC and B lacks one. That's "unfair," no?

A process is "fair" just in case every equally qualified applicant has an equal chance of success. — Within each department, equally qualified applicants do have an equal chance of success.  But there is no objective standard for "equally qualified"; every department has its own desired qualifications.

That's "unfair," no? — NO.  First, there is no ground-truth definition of "equal quality."  More importantly, a candidate without a champion is by definition less qualified, because having a champion is one of the job requirements.

What does having one SC member like you tell us about a candidate's ability to research or teach computer science? surely you don't say in your job ads: "qualified candidates will have excellent teaching, research potential, degree in hand, and be liked by somebody on faculty." I'm talking about bona fide occupational qualifications. (Imagine a sexist boss refusing to hire a worker because of her gender and then saying, "Women are by definition less qualified because being a man is a qualification for the job." I'm not saying the two situations are equivalent; it's just an analogy.

I'm the faculty search chair for a top-5 American computer science department.

How many publications, and of what quality would be required to get a job...?

This is simply the wrong question. To be considered for a position, you must have an independent research record among the very best in the world in your age cohort and subfield. The number of publications really doesn't matter, for the same reason grades don't matter for admission to a top PhD program; there are enough applicants with enough publications that we can afford to focus on more important features.
What matters more is the quality, visibility, impact, and reputation of your research.  You must have a coherent and compelling research vision and agenda. You must have letters from the very best people in your field—people that the search committee already know by reputation, preferably not at your home institution. Those letters must say things like "major impact on the field" and "strongest student on the market this year", with specific, technical, and credible details to back up their opinions.
Moreover, the search committee must agree with the assessment in the reference letters.  Without a champion on the search committee, you will not get an interview; there are simply too many strong applicants.  Yes, we do read your statements, your papers, and other papers that cite your papers ourselves. We also call up colleagues in your field who didn't write you letters and ask them who the best people are in your field; they'd better mention you.
That gets you to the short list of people we are willing to interview.  Unless it's a dry year, there are more people on this list than interview slots, so the recruiting committee has long discussions comparing the merits of various candidates and arguing about departmental needs/strategy. Sometimes enough clear winners emerge; more often, we just have to vote.
Once you are invited to an interview, your performance at the interview often becomes more important than your past record.  Your talk must be compelling and polished. You must impress the faculty and students you meet with your breadth of expertise, your research agenda/vision, your likely success as an advisor, as a collaborator, as an instructor, and as an intellectual leader.
In short, it must be clear that you will get tenure.
Inevitably, more people will "pass" the interview than we have positions to offer. So there is another long and wide-ranging discussion among the faculty, comparing the merits of the various top candidates and arguing about departmental needs. Sometimes clear winners emerge; other times the faculty deadlock and the department head has to make the call.
I have seen candidates with 2 or 3 groundbreaking papers get hired (and later get tenure). I have also seen fresh PhDs with 20+ papers in top venues that were not even considered for an interview, because their work was judged incremental or narrow. The number of papers is simply not the right metric to care about.

The OP's question, in addition to being the wrong question for the kind of school you're at (the OP's category #5), is also the wrong question for the kind of school I'm at: a community college. Of course we don't care about research. What we do care about is the attitude displayed in the question, which is that teaching is a burden to be avoided.

I'm surprised to see an "attitude toward teaching" being imputed to my question. I don't rank the kinds of universities in terms of desirability. There's no judgment made or even implied in my question about the different kinds of schools or different levels of teaching responsibilities a candidate might find at them. The only language I used above that could even plausibly be construed as evaluative is my calling a teaching load greater than 4/4 "incredibly" heavy, which doesn't seem unfair.

I think the attitude toward teaching is displayed in the framing of the question. "How many publications do you need to get hired at a community college?" ignores the most important requirement for being hired at a community college—evidence of teaching excellence.

Hiring decisions are based in teaching, service and research. Asking about expectations along one axis at a certain kind of school doesn't tell you anything about the other axes. I know teaching schools care a lot about teaching. What I want to know is how much do they care about publishing? "They care about it less than they care about teaching" is perfectly true, but not especially informative.

Here's an answer for philosophy, based on anecdotal experience seeing my friends CVs and how they fared on the job market.

No expectations of research. Tenure, if it exists, is going to be on the basis of teaching and service.
Here you need to have published something, but it isn't terribly important that it be in a very high-profile journal. To get tenure you'll probably have to get two to four things published, but quality won't matter very much.
Here you'll need to have at least one very good publication under your belt in order to get considered and realistically probably more like 3-4 publications in top 20 journals for your field. these are desirable jobs and quality will definitely count.
To get a job that involves grad teaching you are going to have to have a number of very high profile publications that speak to your ability to become a recognized leader in your field. I'd think you'd need 3-5 publications, some of which are in top 10ish places.
To get the brass ring, you don't seem to need more than one or two papers, but they need to be in the very best places there are, plus you need to have a couple other papers in the works that your SC can imagine will land there too.

I should also add, I'm a post-doc. I haven't been a SC member, although I've seen a bunch of searches. Don't take my word as gospel here.

The answer we give at our R1 is "N+1" both in regards to hiring and promotion/tenure. That is, there's no safe bright line. Even if you had N publications, you would have needed "N+1" to get hired, promoted, or tenured. It makes for a lot of anxiety in the junior faculty.
Note: Been a search committee member on both searches within my department in the social sciences as well as interdisciplinary programs in the humanities.

Everybody I know is afraid of this too. I guess I'm asking less about a bright line that guarantees success than I am about the dark line that guarantees failure. Is there a minimum below which your application simply won't be considered? You can't have a bright line b/c somebody else could have simply done more than you. But you might notice a floor...

When I was at a SLAC, there was no floor. We hired people without publications. At my R1, for entry positions you need to give us something to read. A published journal article is best, but it can also be in galleys. At worst, we've read people's dissertations but that's always a bad idea. I don't think we've hired anyone who doesn't have at least one publication under their belt (ideally 2-3, with their dissertation monograph under contract for publishing, etc.) . This is in the social sciences, by the way. As always, your mileage may vary.

BTW, the teaching load at my R1 is 2:2 or 2:1 depending on the department. The university itself prides itself on requiring everyone -- including the Famous People® with Nobel Prizes -- to teach the undergrads.


text:
Percentage of PhD's in mathematics with no publications
I have recently read the following statistics in the book "The Survival of a Mathematician: From Tenure to Emeritus" by Steven G. Krantz, which seems a little odd:

It is a hard fact that more than 90% of American Ph.D. mathematicians
  never write a paper. Of those who do, most write just one paper based
  on the Ph.D. thesis and that’s it. Nothing more.

I have seen several new PhD's (graduated in Canada, US, or Europe) with no publications, but my estimate for the rate of such fellows was way more optimistic than the above quote. So, I would like to know:
How accurate is this statistic? Is it documented anywhere?
Are there similar statistics about Mathematics PhD's in other countries?

Does Krantz not give a reference? He should know better than that.

Saying "hard fact" and giving no reference doesn't sound like a scientific argument.

No, he didn't give any reference. It is in the preface of the book. But, he seems a veteran in mathematics. Based on the content of the book, he has worked in several well known universities.

It might be worth contacting him to ask.

Incidentally, Krantz makes this same claim in his companion volume A Mathematician's Survival Guide: Graduate School and Early Career Development (page 133).  No reference is given there either (though he again describes it as a "hard fact").  Vahid, if you don't contact him, I probably will.

Just a comment: everyone here seems to be interpreting "hard fact" as meaning "solid fact" or "100% verifiable", but I think he means "hard-to-swallow fact".

@Jeff But people are disputing that it's even true. If it's not true, it's not any kind of fact!

@Jeff: At page 133 of the book mentioned by Nate, Krantz adopts a happy tone and after describing the lack of publications in some cases, he adds that "But most of us are living good lives at good places". So, it doesn't seem he considers the above statistics as a hard-to-swallow-fact. My guess is he means it is an inevitable fact. Maybe I am wrong!

@Jeff Given that it makes sense in the context, I think "hard" as in "incontrovertible" is the most likely interpretation.  But then, as David says, it doesn't really matter.

I don't suppose there's an easy (by which I mean automated) way to survey the mathematical journals and determine the nationality and PhD status of the authors? "How many distinct US citizens holding PhDs in mathematics have published an article in [reasonable time period]?", possibly broken down by year of PhD, feels like a question that should be answerable from journal indices plus a source of biographical data, granted the data might be bit dirty. Then "are there 10 times this many US citizens with mathematics PhDs?" can't be all that hard to estimate.

@DavidRicherby That actually speaks to my point. If it's true, it's automatically a hard fact. What is a soft fact? There's not much utility gained in adding modifiers to the word "fact".
Anyway, obviously, whether this is a fact is the important point. I just thought it was strange that everyone seemed to be harping on the "hardness" aspect.

@Jeff perhaps the fact should be verifiable in polynomial time? :)

I have sent an email to Professor Krantz asking him to clarify the passage.  I will post back with whatever I hear from him.

@VahidShirbisheh  Maybe the following link  is interseting as a post which indirectly relates to your question http://mathoverflow.net/questions/57337/when-should-a-supervisor-be-a-co-author

As much as I enjoy Krantz's work on the whole, this sentence strikes me as not really qualifying as "hard fact."  On the other hand, I think part what may be throwing you off is that he says "Ph.D. mathematician" not "new Ph.D."  So, he's including mathematicians who graduated long ago (one of the issues with "hard fact" status is that it's unclear how far back he's going.  To the first Ph.D. awarded to an American?), at a time when mathematicians were under much less pressure to publish.
For new Ph.D.'s this number is surely false.  10% of the Ph.D. graduates of American Ph.D. programs (from 2010) is about 160.  That's half the number that are employed immediately after graduating at PhD granting institutions in the US.  I find it hard to believe that half of those people will never write any published papers, and I know for a fact that lots of PhD's who are employed at bachelor's institutions or go on to other kinds of work have at least one publication.  The numbers above come from the 2010 AMS Annual survey.

Your answer is more convincing. But still I would like to know if there is any estimate for the above rate anywhere else?

This might or might not help: could also be an exception: I know one American graduate student at a good institution without a single published paper, but with a long arXiv paper, landed a 3-year research postdoc at a research I US university.

This is tiresome nit-picking given the general feeling that the claim is utter rot, but perhaps "American PhD mathematicians" != "PhD mathematicians from American universities". It seems unlikely to me either that all those people you know are publishing papers are foreign nationals, or that a large majority of US mathematicians are taking their PhDs overseas and never publishing. You just haven't considered those possibilities yet.

@SteveJessop I don't see what nit you want to pick.  I'm the drunk looking under the street light for his keys because the light is better there: new Ph.D.'s from US programs is something where I knew where to find (some of) the numbers, so that's what I gave as details.  Part of my issue with the statement is precisely that "American Ph.D. mathematicians" is not especially clear.  Is that people based in the US now?  Those born in the US?  Citizens?

That said, I doubt there's any interpretation of "American Ph.D. mathematicians" that makes this statement true, and I am even more dubious that Krantz could possibly have data to back up his claim.

I sent an email to Professor Krantz mentioning the present discussion and asking him whether his numbers are "supported by published or rigorously gathered data, or your own observations, or are simply meant rhetorically".  Here is his response, posted here with his permission.
Summary: he does not appear to have data at hand to support those numbers, but he believes they are accurate.

Dear Nate,
Your question is a good one.
Certainly my statement is well supported by my own personal
  observation---after forty years in the business.  But I have seen
  sources even recently that say pretty much the same thing.  I'm sorry
  that I can't say what those sources are.
You can think about the matter this way.  The vast majority of
  academic jobs in this country are at what we call comprehensive
  schools.  And those are places where teaching is the thing.
  Generally speaking, people don't do much research there.  They have to
  publish a paper or two to get tenure, and those papers tend to be
  fairly close to the thesis.  But then that's about it.
A lot of other people get jobs at the National Security Agency, or Los
  Alamos, or another government think tank.  Generally speaking,
  publishing is not the thing there either.  Sometimes people publish in
  special classfied government journals.
Other people get jobs at Microsoft or Hewlett-Packard or what have
  you.  And publishing is not the thing there either.
Those of us who are lucky enough to be in math departments at true
  research universities are definitely in the small minority.
I believe that, at the time I wrote those words, I consulted some
  people at the American Mathematical Society and they had data to
  support what I was saying.
Feel free to quote me to others if you wish.
Best,
Steve Krantz

Thank you Nate for communicating with Prof. Krantz and sharing his response. To support his point of view, I think it is safe to assume that most PhD's with a few publications (and closely related to their theses) have written those papers under the influence of their supervisors, and consequently after graduation and getting a non-research jobs they are not able or not willing to write independent papers. And I think it is not an issue seen only in US.

How do we know this is a legitimate response an not invented by you?

@Santropedro: You don't.  There is nothing I could post here that would prove that it is authentic.  You'll simply have to decide whether you want to take my word for it or not.

There have been several papers analyzing the data from the Mathematical Reviews database (MathSciNet). One of them is Patterns of Collaboration in Mathematical Research, Jerrold W. Grossman, SIAM News 35, 2002. That paper gives a distribution of number of papers by author. It confirms that 42% of authors in the database have 1 paper.

Grossman also has similar 2005 Notices article.  Apparently from 2002 to 2005, the number of authors with 1 paper went up to 43%, but it still seems unlikely that Krantz's statement "most write just one paper based on the Ph.D. thesis and that’s it" was true at any point in recent history.  By the way, for most institutions, Ph.D. theses are not listed as an author publication in the MR database.

To test Krantz's assertion for recent Ph.D.s from U.S. universities, one can use statistical sampling.  The American Mathematical Society published a list of 2013-2014 doctoral degrees in mathematics from U.S. institutions.  Selecting random names from this list and checking the obvious places for papers should give a good estimate for what percentage have written at least one paper by a year and a half after graduating.
Unfortunately, I don't see a good way to sample uniformly from this list, without some counting or approximations.  Instead, I flipped through it and grabbed ten names from near the centers of the pages, about three pages apart (in a 31-page document).  This isn't a particularly careful sampling technique, and it presumably introduced some bias, but it should suffice to detect anything occurring 90% of the time.
For each of the ten people I selected, I looked for mathematics papers on Google Scholar, the arXiv, a home page, or MathSciNet.  I did not count the dissertation itself, and I was prepared to exclude anything that appeared to be undergraduate research but this turned out not to be an issue.  The results were as follows:

Six people had publications in journals.
Two more had papers they described as accepted by journals.
One listed a conference publication.  Web searches make it clear that this paper exists (and it has been cited by another paper with disjoint authors), but I could not find a copy online.
For the remaining person, I found no evidence of any papers.

I was surprised at how high the percentage of people with publications was, and perhaps it indicates that my sample was not so representative.  However, it appears that even people working in teaching-only jobs or outside academia are likely to write at least one paper.
If anyone carries out a more careful study of this issue, I would love to see the results.


text:
"Electronics and Communications Engineering" equivalent in the U.S.A
I graduated from a European University with a Bachelor of Science Degree (Engineering Degree) and I'm about to move in the United States.
My specialization/ major would be Telecommunications Engineering.
What is the US equivalent of this ? I've noticed US colleges usually have EE(Electrical Engineering programs), which is the closest I've found.

For my undergraduate degree in EE from a U.S. institution, a majority (if not all) of the upper-division coursework was in the fields of communications and electronics.

Are you asking what the equivalent of your undergraduate degree would be, or what the graduate degree you hope to earn would be called?

Electrical engineering and (when it exists) electronics engineering usually cover telecommunications, as well as many other topics. Undergraduate degrees in NA are usually broader in scope than those in Europe.
But it wouldn't try to change the terminology of your own major: keep it as telecommunications engineering if that's what it is, and everyone will understand.

My University's program is called "Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering". Since I've just graduated, my diploma hasn't been issued.For example, MIT and Harvard offer concentration in EE-CS (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science).

I wanted to clarify the terminology used in US for career purposes and maybe pursuing a Master's Degree.

I wouldn't misrepresent your degree. If you say you've graduated with an electrical engineering degree in the US, many people will assume your have done some power engineering, for instance. Use what is written on your diploma, and maybe clarify your coursework in the accompanying documents.

Also Switzerland puts everything under one hat (electrical engineering and IT or something like that), but within those catch-all degrees, you have a choice of multiple tracks which reflect the various tracks directly offered as degrees in other countries (telecommunications, control, electronics, electrical engineering sensu stricto), or you have greater freedom in choosing coursework (more frequent in the US, but I've seen tracks on their programs too), so there is no real difference.
When in doubt, in the US it's probably called EE.

The closest you're going to get is Computer Engineering.  Most universities will have classes on networking, but you'll have to look for those with telecom.  Otherwise, if you want to specialize in telecommunications, your best bet is probably a trade school.

Actually, I intend to apply for Graduate School in Computer Science.

if you want to specialize in telecommunications, your best bet is probably a trade school. - what? There are plenty of academic graduate programs in telecommunications. (And these are not necessarily in computer engineering departments)

Electrical and Electronic Engineering usually refers to building electrical devices like computers, or cellphone networks.
Computer Science usually refers to using computers, especially programming.
I hope this helps clarify some terminology.

This is not accurate. Electrical engineering does not necessarily involve "building electrical devices" (though it may include that) and computer science is much more than "using computers"

Vastly simplified (of course) in order to emphasise the difference between them. I think both are generally accurate though. If Electrical Engineering is not about building devices it is at least about the theory of building the devices.


text:
Lectures and labs on the same day as an exam?
I'm taking a two day workshop at a technical institute, the instructor has said that all accredited courses must have final exams. Fair enough.
Since this is such a short course the exam will be on the same day that we are also being presented new material. This seems very strange to me, to be given an exam after approximately 5 hours of both lectures and labs throughout the day. That being said, I have a lack of academic experience, so I would like to hear from you.
Is this a common practice to have lectures and labs on the same day as an exam (of the same class)?

Generally, you should wait for more than an hour to accept an answer as accepting so quickly will deter other, perhaps better quality, answers.

The university I'm at recently had a class with lecture in the morning, lab that afternoon, exam an hour after that, then a quiz the following morning in lecture, and finally a recitation that afternoon. Summer semesters tend to be like this as they are shorter in length than a fall or spring semester. No one is happy with it, but it's what needs to happen to cover all the requisite material.
What would typically happen during a regular semester is that labs can't be moved or adjusted, but usually the following lecture is either shorter of cancelled if it is the next day and the lecture the day of the exam is mostly review. But I must point out it is at the discretion of the professor.

I have not met this scheme for university (or univerity-alike) courses*,
but I have met it for professional training courses and other crash courses that lead to an exam (e.g. intensive courses leading up to exams you're required to take by law in order to be allowed to do/handle certain things).
However, for those courses

The curriculum is defined, definitive, and well-known
Exams required by law often have lists of accredited questions which are available. It is sometimes even recommended to study these catalogues as preparation for the exam.
(example)
And the course materials are usually distributed well before the course.

* Years ago I attended a summer school where I cannot remember whether there was an exam at the end or not. However, the certificate doesn't have grades, so if there was an exam, that would have been more a check for ourselves how good the understanding of the covered subjects was.


text:
Is it OK to contact authors of the research paper requesting an implementation?
Given the research paper itself and having a complete understanding of the proposed system, I could implement the system on my own. If my intention is not to re-implement it myself, but rather study the original implementation(probably by the authors of the paper), I've got the following line of questions

Is it acceptable if I seek the original implementation of the paper?
Is it OK to contact the author(s), and request their implementation by giving a valid reason?
Are IEEE papers intellectual properties, that such a task of seeking implementation is entirely stupid?

This is more about etiquette in academia than it is about CS; in particular, the question applies to many other fields. Hence, migrating to [academia.SE].

That is three questions, i.e. two more than the allowed quota for a
post :-)
Seeking more information on a topic, within legal limits, is your privilege.
It is always OK to write to an author about any aspect of his works,
as long as it remains a civilized exchange (which is sometimes not
the case). It should be preferably clear that you have a technical level that justifies taking his time. This should show in the style of your request, not by listing degrees and achievements.  Just be very simple, clear, and direct.
He may reply or not, or tell you what are the limits on what he can
tell you if some of the work is confidential.
But you should first try to see what is available on the net from him
or others who may have collaborated.  People are usually friendly, but
sometimes swamped with requests, and try to save time by preparing
answers on their web site, or the web site of their organization.
So, writing is encouraged. Asking for more papers or implementation,
or experimental results, is fine. But always try to spare the time of
the people you write to, and avoid asking idle questions or using the
exchange of mail as free tutoring.
All papers, all writings are intellectual property (IP), including this
answer to you, which I happen to put under a creatve common licence,
so that you do not even notice it is intellectual property.
An IEEE paper is also IP, usually owned mostly by IEEE, but there are
many more detais to this (search the web for "open access" and "Berlin
declaration").
But the IP concerns only the text of the papers, not the ideas you can
find in it.  So you are quite free to rewrite the content of a
scientific paper (not a novel) in your own words and distribute it ...
with due acknowledgement to the original author as the creator of the
ideas, and reference to his original paper.
IEEE may own IP rights on a paper, but that implies in no way any
right on the implementation of the ideas, on the experimental results or other preliminary work conducted to produce the paper, or on derived work,
including the notes a teacher can write for his class on the topic of
the paper.
Does this answer your questions?

Just a nit-picky point. I can think of at least one author who has built nearly all of his oeuvre by transcribing the works of another author in his own words. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Take West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet for example.

@RickDecker Well, I excluded novels (an example among other things) because, though you can reuse a theme, you really should be careful not to be too close in the details of the story. Some law suits are very expensive. For a technical text, you have no choice but following pretty closely, as technical details cannot be changed, though you are supposed to vary the style and the presentation.


text:
What is life as "Head of Department ____" like?
In the past few years, I've become very interested in staying in academia for as long as possible. I really wanted to be a professor, and I still do. Using the internet and meeting with a few professors, I've researched various aspects of life as a professor, including daily schedules, salaries, etc. While trying to get an idea of what a typical professor's salary might look like, I always stumbled upon "Head of Department" salaries, which were considerably greater than other professor salaries. I liked the idea of being paid more, but I always dismissed the idea of becoming a "Head of Department" because I thought that their work was more related to administration than teaching or talking about the field of their department. (One of the main reasons I want to be a professor is the opportunity to be directly involved in the fields I'm passionate about every single day.) However, I recently traveled to a university in my state with the company I am interning at, and I met the head of the department of mechanical engineering. Though that is not my field of interest, I was very glad to have the chance to meet with her. I learned all about her day-to-day life as head of department: I learned that she is quite actively involved in many PhD students' projects, and oversees many research projects. There is also an administrative aspect in her job, but it isn't nearly as overwhelming or burdensome as I thought. Since the visit, I've become very interested in a job like hers.
Is my perception of "Head of Department" skewed? What can I do to be involved in my field like she is in hers?
I would love to learn about and teach my passions for a living.
Side question: How involved are deans of __ in their respective fields?

Your perception is skewed, most heads of departments do not get paid considerably more.

In my university the HODs are just normal profs who are holding the post for a period of 3-5 years. It's a sort of bridge between the academics and the administration from my POV.

I found this question on StackExchange's "Hot Network Questions" list, immediately followed by one titled "Toilet Flush Buttons". That might be a hint.

I thought you were talking about the Senior Reader in _______ in Fallen London :O

My university distinguishes between two different department executive structures.  A department chair is (by default) a 3-year rotating position, almost always appointed from the existing faculty.  A department head is a 5-year position, renewable up to 10, more often hired through an external search (which may include internal candidates).  Heads generally have more power than chairs; departments with more faculty and/or more external funding generally have heads rather than chairs.

My university has a tiered system. A department head might get: a teaching release, a small stipend, or a 12-month position with a higher salary. Whether they get any of those depends on how large the department is. For small departments, the chair gets nothing more than a one-course teaching release.

When comparing department chairs' salaries to other professors' salaries, keep in mind that the department chair is often one of the more senior members of the department.

I had the great (mis)fortune of being a department chair for four years. This was at a small, not prestigious, liberal arts college. We use the "weak" chair model as mentioned by Bill Barth (which I think compromises such things as chair evaluations of faculty: pan someone, even fairly, and they will get the chance to return the favor). I was an associate professor when I took the position, it was my turn. I did get a course reduction, from four to three courses per semester, along with a minor stipend (I could have made more, with less time commitment, teaching five courses). There were the expected administrative duties: making schedules each semester, purchase orders, budget, etc. Since the position had no real power, I was a glorified secretary to the department. All but one of my facult were former chairs, but they all came to me with every little problem as if they had no idea of what to do. Finally, I reminded them they were former chairs and if they had some request that needed my approval. then they should get the necessary forms, fill them out, and bring them to me for signature. This solved that problem.
However, it always seemes there was something to take care of. As an example of how frustrating things can be, I arrived at my office one day at 8:00AM with three things I wanted to do. I left for home at 6:00PM having done none of them.
I was just beginning to solidify a research program when I took the job. When I was done, I seriously considered leaving academia. After a few years of decompression, I revived my enthusiasm for research and am getting back to speed, but those several years off, complicated by some family issues, really hurt me from a professional standpoint.
Now that I've related my horror story, I should point out that there are some people at my school who honestly enjoy being chair. Nonetheless, I would caution anyone to think long and hard before taking the plunge.

I would consider you fortunate if the anecdote in your second paragraph was a one-time occurrence. Alas, many, if not most, of my days could be described that way. :-) (+1)

@cadinal  There's only so much space available for answers. I had two colleagues with a running feud. I had to listen to one rant that the other had snuck into his office at night, in the winter, and cracked open the window to intentionally kill his flowers. You can't make this stuff up, to borrow a phrase. I'm sure we could both write books about our experiences.

"I arrived at my office one day at 8:00AM with three things I wanted to do. I left for home at 6:00PM having done none of them.", sounds like a normal job then!

Another factor to consider is that at least at US universities there seem to be two extremes for how departments are run. At one end, the Department Head or Department Chair is strong and has considerable influence over the direction of the department as a whole. In such places, the Chair can direct the research direction of the department, make faculty hiring decisions, and steer the department as though it were their larger research group. At the other extreme, the departmental committees really have the power. There, the Chair is more of a rubber stamp for the committee decisions and represents their wishes to outside entities. In these models, the Dean or Head of School or whoever the Chair reports to also has a lot of power over the department.
In the weak Chair model, department insiders usually take turns being Chair and then return to being regular faculty after their turn is up. In the strong Chair model, a national or international search will be done to find a top candidate to come in and lead the department to glory. Such a Chair might run the department for much of the rest of their career.
All of the above are caricatures of the way departments work, but they give you an idea of much of the range of what is possible. In either model, the Chair may be involved to a greater or lesser degree in teaching and research depending on their preference and local culture.

There's another extreme where departments have no power and Deans are the powerful ones.

@RoboKaren, sure, I can see how such departments might exist, though I thought it out of scope here. I don't know what happens at universities where the departments have zero power. Do they even bother to have Chairs or committees? More subtly, are there strong-department model departments that cannot be overruled by Deans, Provosts, or Presidents in any case ever? That would seem to defeat the purpose of having the upper officials, but I'm not in an academic department, so my experience is pretty limited to outside observation.

Even weak departments need scapegoats^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H chairs.

@BillBarth - I agree, that's why I made it as a comment and not a reply. :-)

I think this varies a lot depending on the field, the department and it's size.  In my experience department chairs/head of departments (US/UK terminology respectively, on the whole) spend the majority of their working time on administration, but will remain involved in research and teaching, though at a reduced level.  I think the degree to which they do this depends on their preferences. Those who are ready to stop or take a break from teaching and research can and people generally don't blame them; those who are still excited about it will find a way to continue them.  It all just depends.
However, I feel like there's a fallacy underlying your question.  You seem to think (forgive me if I'm wrong; I am reading a bit between the lines) that "Head of Department" is a separate career track or something.  In fact, I've never heard of a department head who wasn't a "normal" professor for 15 to 20 years before becoming head of department.  It's not something I have a special interest in doing, but I have every reason to think I'll probably do a stint or two as department chair 20 or so years from now.  So, at this stage in your life (your profile says you are 17), there's no reason to worry about whether you want to do it.  Assuming you go into academia, become a professor, and stick with for a couple of decades, then you can think about whether it's something that makes sense for you, in the context of your department or one doing an external search at that time.

The simple answer to your question "What is life as “Head of Department ____” like?" in one word is: difficult. Other words I can think of include thankless and masochistic. Perhaps I am being too cynical (after having had the role for four years). It all depends on which country you are in, what type of institution, the stage at which you are in your career and your overall aspirations. You talk about money, but the reality is that the remuneration is unlikely to equate to the workload and pressure, so I would never do it for the money alone. If that is what you want, go into industry or commerce.
Head of Dept. is the description used in the UK. In the UK system, it is a powerful role and you will have a lot of influence on the direction and strategy of the department. This can make it very rewarding, but it is also a potential minefield. Don't expect to be friends with everybody; getting a group of academics to agree is rather like herding cats. There is also the stress associated with all manner of problems, such as difficult student issues, difficult staff issues, dealing with higher and lower levels of admin, not to mention the time required for all of this and the countless meetings you have to attend. This is a job only for those with a thick skin, lots of stamina, a sense of humour, good management and diplomatic skills. Also bear in mind that unless you have a reasonably sized research team, you will find it hard to produce any research in reasonable volume.
Having said all that, there are people who relish academic management, and if you are in the right place at the right time, it can be the first step on a career path in the university management system. Someone who is Head of Dept. in their late 40's, for example, might well spend the rest of their career in senior university management as long as they don't screw up. At the end of the day, someone has to manage the system and if you are OK with it, go for it. But as someone else said, think long and hard about it.

"Department heads" come in different types. Some are like the kind that you say, basically faculty members with some administrative duties. Others are more "political" types, who are better noted for their administrative, than academic abilities. These two archtypes will fulfill the role at different times and situations.
I'm writing about the experience of my father, a retired civil engineering professor, who spent a year and a half as the Acting Department Head. It was an "interim" position, held after a "political" type left, in which the priority was to restore the confidence of the faculty. My father participated heavily in PhD thesis supervision (a favorite activity of his), and worked closely with the Faculty Senate (which would be his next destination). All this was made possible by the "temporary" nature of the position.
All this changed when there was a new dean, who wanted a Department Head to "kick the asses of the full professors." My father's successor was a tough minded man (a Holocaust survivor, for starters), who did just that. But the pressures of that role were too much, even for him, and he had to step down after several years. While he was there, he relied on my father, who had been a department head, while being a good link to the Faculty Senate.
It sounds like you could do well as one type of Department Head but maybe not the other. So you need to keep your eyes out on the institution to determine which is more likely to be the case. Bear in mind that is analysis could be complicated by the fact that the institution's needs may change from time to time as well.

I don't have exact knowledge about what the life of a Head of Department Professor is, but looking at the Professors who act as heads of departments in my university, I can tell that they are equally involved in teaching as the other Professors.
Simply if you want to deduce if a particular head of department is involved in teaching and research, look at the number of his publications after he became head of department (I know, this information can be misleading), also look at the courses they teach. I have not noticed any change in those numbers (in my University) after a given Professor became head of a department.
It is true that they are more involved in administrative/managerial tasks. But, I think that is something that comes with experience. I assume you are a young scholar and eager to do teaching, but do you think you will have the same amount of desire after 20+ years on the field? Some managerial experience might look interesting then, right?

Every department I am aware of the head gets some sort of teaching reduction.

that is why I have explicitly stated: "I have not noticed any change in those numbers (in my University)..."

authors: 已婚撩了一个小鲜肉_已婚撩了一个小鲜肉无跳转入口