text:
How to acknowledge a more general result?
The main result of my paper X (in mathematics) turns out to be a special case of another paper Y.  How should I acknowledge their priority without making my paper look worthless?
This is the situation: in terms of the main theoretical result...

X is a special case of Y
X was posted on arXiv after Y
X was presented at a conference before Y even started (there is no conference proceedings though)
I was not aware of Y until I put X on arXiv.

Is the proof technique similar?

I believe the proofs are quite different in the two papers.

If the proof techniques are very different, that should be enough to justify it getting published. If your result preceeded the general result then it should also be enough. The two of them together should both be mentioned explicitly.

Cite it as usual. You can note that the paper is an extension of your work. You can, if you feel the need, give the date of the conference, etc. It may be that Y was aware of X from the conference, or it may just be parallel work.
In any case, your work isn't worthless. Just a symptom, perhaps, of a subfield with a lot of current activity.
But you should also look at how you and they achieved the respective results. It may be that your, more specialized, paper has proof techniques that are valuable in themselves. There is more to mathematics than the results.


text:
Competitiveness and Success Caliber in Academia
Every day, I am figuring out that competitiveness in academia is high. Of course, there are thousands of academics, but only a small number really make an impact with outstanding research.
My goal -- since I was a young girl -- is to be a prominent researcher.
I got an assistant lecturer position at my home university, which is not top-tier, where I worked with incompetent professors. I travelled later and found that I am not good at all and figured that my goal is far beyond me, after I was forced to leave my PhD, after just one year, which is as a black mark on my record.
Maybe this off-topic, but at 28 years of age, I didn't achieve what I was looking for. I am quite disappointed. My female role-models' paths were straight; I had some bumps in my life that made the delay. I wish I can know how to find a good lab, I wish to work with a really good professor.
My question: How can one survive in academia beyond publications, because there are thousands of crappy researchers and only a small number who made a serious impact?
I'm really passionate about learning and exploring, I feel I am in a cage and I want to find the place where I belong, but I didn't yet, and I am afraid it is too late.

Monika, I tried to clarify your words with my edit. I hope I didn't loose any of the meaning. Please do edit further if you think it would help.

@user2768, none absolutely, thanks so much for your precious edit.

You aren't alone, maybe take a look at https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=impostor+syndrome

Join the thousands and contribute something useful...

“My female role-models' paths were straight” — they may look straight from the outside but it’s unlikely that they were actually all that straight (I know counter-examples but they are rare and, importantly, due to pure chance).

No, it's not too late, my former spouse finished a doctorate when over 40 and had a great career afterwards.
But you seem to have an odd view of academia, especially when you write about "competitiveness". That seems to imply that for me to "win" you need to "lose". A zero sum game. It ain't like that, and making it like that will only harm your chances of success.
Academics normally work for personal success. They want to do good work. They strive to extend what is known in their field. But one of the best tools for that is cooperation, not competition. There is no reason for me to think that I'm better or worse than you if I'm doing what I like and produce valid results - perhaps with your help. Or you produce good results with mine.
In fact, many people rise to the "top" in academia for purely random reasons. They choose to work in a field they find interesting. But at the same time, many others, seeing the history, choose to do the same. The field becomes "hot" and so some of its practitioners are seen as hot as well. But it was just chance in many ways.
But the really big breakthroughs have often/usually been the result of teamwork. The fact that many breakthroughs in computing came out of Bell Labs was due to the close association it provided among good people. Those people reinforced one another's ideas in a synergistic way.
My advice is to do what you love. And find others to work with you to achieve success. It can be great success or not, but if life is rewarding it is worth it. You don't have to "beat" anyone.
Also, prominence is a mixed blessing/curse. You will get asked to do more than you want to do. You will give yourself an ulcer if you don't learn to relax. Your personal life may come under a microscope. If it comes naturally you will be able to handle the pressure as it develops, but if you are overly competitive you will find few allies. Relax. Focus on the science, not the success.

I think your attitude is the only feasible one. Nevertheless, 1 job for 50 applicants makes academia a competition (in which there are 49 losers for each winner), like it or not.

@henning I keep hearing similar numbers and they don’t make sense. No position I have ever applied for, including a highly competitive PhD programme, had anywhere close to this ratio. Said PhD programme was ~3/50, and most of the ~1000 applicants were immediately filtered out as unsuitable, making the rate for serious applicants substantially better. For other positions, the ratio was more like 1/5 or 1/2, and I hope nobody only applies for a single position. These odds are very beatable.

@KonradRudolph I admit, this number is just my guess. I wasn't talking about PhD positions, however. I meant permanent positions. That's were the bottleneck is.

@henning As was I. These numbers get bandied about in both academia and industry and I fundamentally don’t believe them (with the caveat that, in academia, most serious positions nowadays are obviously no longer permanent).

Two more points that might be mentioned.  First, even if you enjoy science (or even if you're passionate about it), it's a job.  Get a life outside of work.  Second, you will find good professors at universities that aren't "top tier", because they have lives outside of work, and enjoy the quality of life in smaller places.

@KonradRudolph How many positions have you applied for in your life and when was the last one you submitted? Over 240 applications for 3 places at postdoc-level has happened to me twice.

@the_fox That’s madness, I’ve never heard of such a thing in my field. Where did this happen?

@KonradRudolph I'm sorry you don't believe those numbers, and things may be different in your field, but a few years ago in my department we had an advertised permanent "starting level" position for which there was a longlist of 100 after filtering out the "obviously unsuitable" and probably 50 of which were "probably reasonable as appointments, even when we take into account research preferences", several of whom were on their 2nd postdoc. I think the eventual shortlist of interviewees was about 6 people.

These sort of extreme numbers come up periodically in many fields, depending on economics of the day and what the current hype is.

@Buffy: I think this is more than "come up periodically", this is what the job market is like these days in my subject, at least in the UK (and North America seems about the same from discussions with peopel I know there)

A few points-

28 is not too late at all. You still have a tremendous amount of time. We all mature at different rates. Some rush and graduate from undergrad by 20, then speed through a phd program by 24. Some are very successful doing this, others are not. From a personal standpoint, I took a 5-6 years between undergrad and starting a phd to work in the field. I have found that this experience greatly enriched my scholarship.
There is a lot of good work in academia. I do not believe that the majority is crappy, most is very good, and very necessary work. And the other thing you must ask yourself is "good work to who?".  What is considered good work by a policy maker might be different than an academic.
Failing out of a phd program is not the end of the world, you wont be the first or the last to have this happen to them. You just pick yourself up, transfer to a different university, and graduate.

To specifically answer your question:
a. write
b. present your writing in conferences
c. publish your writing in journals
If you publish 3-4 papers a year as a first author, there stands a really good chance that in a few years you will start to make a name for yourself in your field. You do this over a decade and you will be a tenured professor who is a prominent member of your field.
Thats the reality of academia, you cannot get away from having to write and publish. Eventually you will reach a point where your time is better spent writing grants and managing a lab but you have to write/publish to get there.

How can one survive in academia beyond publications

The short answer is that it's nearly impossible to survive in academia without publishing. You want to make an impact and push forward your ideas? You have to publish them, shout them out to the world!

there are thousands of crappy researchers and only a small number who made a serious impact

This is again true, it is very hard to have a significant impact in academia. You need a combination of skill and luck.
You had a couple of setbacks, worked with people you didn't get along with, and the clock has been ticking in the meanwhile. Is it too late? No! I only finished my bachelor's degree when I was in my late 20s, and I know many others who did the same. Not finishing your PhD successfully is not great, but is not necessarily a "black mark". We are all human and stuff happens.
What you really need to succeed in academia is drive, and a willingness to learn from your failures. I would say that these are necessary, not sufficient, conditions, but still important.
Good luck!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
When should people ask naive questions?
I'm a graduate student in math and I usually have lots of questions about papers I read. Sometimes my questions are about technical things but a lot of questions I have are about "well-known" facts that I didn't learn from courses or from my background reading. I do think about my question to make sure I can't quickly figure out the answer. What is a litmus test or rule of thumb for asking experts naive questions? Over the years the responses I have gotten were: "It's obvious," "Exercise" (when I never figure out the answer due to lack of knowledge), an ethusiastic response, or uncertainty from experts as to the answer.
I don't want experts to think, "How do you not know this?" I want to develop a reputation as a knowledgeable grad student who has potential as a researcher. A postdoc friend confided in me that he doesn't post questions because he's worried he'll look stupid. And I also don't want to annoy people with lots of trivial questions. But I also know that I have to learn from them, and that it's usually way faster to ask someone in person about their paper than to hit a roadblock in their paper and keep thinking about it.
My algorithm so far goes as follows:

Ask my adviser or some grad students.
Do as thorough an Internet search as possible. Look for the answer in papers that may provide a clue.
Ask my questions on MathStackExchange. If I don't get an answer there ask on MathOverflow.
If MathOverflow answers are unclear or I don't get responses, either discuss the answers with my adviser or email an expert out of the blue.

What would be a more efficient algorithm for asking possibly naive questions, if there is one? The main drawback I have encountered is that an expert can sometimes answer my question right away, whereas independent search would take too much time.

How is independant search a "drawback" as you are also learning other things along the way...

Well I do learn things along the way but it rarely provides an answer to my question.

If your searching is rarely providing an answer, the it is the searching accuracy you need to improve.

This is an anecdote rather than an answer, but there was a fellow PhD student in the same year as me, who I thought asked too many basic questions during lectures and office hours. As time went by, his questions got more advanced, and by the time we graduated, he knew a lot more than me and got a better postdoctoral position than I did.

Perhaps you are overthinking the effect that asking questions has. Perhaps you are misjudging which questions are "naive". They don't sound naive to you, I think, but you worry that they are naive to others.
I went to school long ago - mathematics. Before the internet. Before personal (or many) computers. But my solution to having a question was to ask it. I asked a lot of questions. I didn't bother people in their offices for simple(ish) things, but in class I pretty much always had my hand up. My mother was often exasperated with me for asking so many questions as a child, but I never got that sense that my professors were.
But the effect was that almost everyone thought I was very smart. Smarter, probably, than I really am. It turns out that I was just bold enough to ask the questions that other students were afraid to ask. Some of the questions I asked, of course, were the result of errors made by the prof in lecture and he/she would then correct them, but most were just gaps.
But the best answer isn't always a direct answer, but a hint as to how/where the answer can be found. The simple answer doesn't usually give the context you need. The "answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42" may be correct or not, but it isn't enlightening. It is the connections between things that are important, everywhere, but especially in mathematics.
Some may think that you are asking things you "should" already know, but everyone will see you as engaged, rather than complacent.
It turns out that, just as in a course, in grad school you probably aren't there to prove to people that you don't need to be there. Ask and ye shall receive.

The last paragraph deserves to be printed (or cross-stitched?) and put up in a frame.

Heh. Yes, a pithy aphorism: you're not in grad school to prove that you don't need to be there. :)

To build on what Buffy said: my experiences have been that people don't mind questions, even 'naive' ones.  What they mind are questions being asked that show you've done no effort on your part to find an answer.  Based on the fact that you have an algorithm to find answers, I cannot imagine that you fall into that second category!  If anything, it sounds like you are worried you've gone too far out the other side: that is, are you spending too much time doing your own research when you can get the needed information faster.  That's a bit more of a personal decision, so I can't tell you about you, only about me.
I don't think people (as whole) or academics (in particular) have any idea how complicated ideas get.  For most any grad-school-level topic, there's a ton of background information that goes into it that most experts forget that they had to acquire.  (what I consider "the expert's blindspot" but wikipedia has listed as "the curse of knowledge".)  I have found that experts who are reminded of the level of complexity of background information respond to questions (that some might think are naive) quite well.  It's when experts still have that blindspot that they think a question is 'stupid / foolish / naive' (etc.)
By showing that you have done some research on your own, you help remind the experts that learning is hard and involves a lot of steps and that you are trying.  I can be prone to the idea of "oh, I don't want to bother so-and-so", but I have learned to overcome that (to some degree).  As long as I have shown some level of research on my part, I have found that answers are not hard to come by, as long as I am willing to ask them.  (Lastly, most experts love to talk about their topic.  Getting an expert to talk about their area of expertise is usually pretty dang easy!)

Plus 1 for the second sentence in the first para...

Exactly this. The issue is not the few seconds it might take them to answer the question, it's the perception of "I'm asking instead of looking it up because I consider my time to be more valuable than yours". Clarifying what you've already tried is a good way to defuse that perception.

I don't want experts to think, "How do you not know this?" I want to develop a reputation as a knowledgeable grad student who has potential as a researcher.

Reputations tend to develop based on facts.  If you want to develop a reputation as knowledgeable, then get knowledgeable, by asking questions when you don't know something.  In other words, you are doing the right thing by asking questions.  Don't worry if it is a "naive" question, of if you are afraid you will look silly.  If you don't know the answer, and you can't figure it out yourself, then ask for help.  You are a student after all!  Gradually you will develop more knowledge, and your reputation will eventually reflect that knowledgeable state.  Professors are much more impressed by a grad-student who is hungry for knowledge and unafraid of embarrassment than one who covers up their lack of knowledge by being afraid to ask questions.

Over the years the responses I have gotten were: "It's obvious," "Exercise" (when I never figure out the answer due to lack of knowledge), an enthusiastic response, or uncertainty from experts as to the answer.

"It's obvious" is a shitty answer, and whoever told you that is a shitty teacher.  If it's not obvious to you at graduate level then it is probably not obvious, and your professors should attempt to elucidate it for you.  If you are having trouble with exercises assigned to you then this may reflect a lack of preliminary knowledge in techniques needed to solve those problems, so try to solve it as an exercise and come back for more help when you've hit a wall.  If the experts are uncertain then that means you are approaching the level of problem where things are getting pretty difficult.  Keep asking questions and bringing tenacity to your problems and eventually they will crack.

A postdoc friend confided in me that he doesn't post questions because he's worried he'll look stupid.

That approach is what looks stupid to me.  I learn really fast because I ask a lot of dumb questions that make me look stupid.  You'd be surprised how much you learn when you do that.

Professors are much more impressed by a grad-student who is hungry for knowledge and unafraid of embarrassment than one who covers up their lack of knowledge by being afraid to ask questions. This should be true, and many professors say this about themselves, but it is often false.

@guest No, I disagree. That level of handholding is not appropriate for graduate studies.

This is the fetish of graduate school.  That pedagogy should be worse because the material is harder.  I have trained graduate school, undergrad, high school academics, sports,, military skills.  Pedagogy applies in all areas.  It's a junk answer.  Takes same amount of time to give a responsive answer as a non responsive one.

@guest Handholding is not pedagogy. It is not about how long something takes, either. Or about fetishes. Anyway, if you feel your approach works, by all means use it.

@Andres: With respect, that seems like a false dichotomy to me. Surely there is some room for useful assistance in the large gulf between hand-holding versus just dismissing a problem as obvious.  I agree that grad-students should not be spoon-fed, but just dismissing their inquiries by saying that something is obvious is not rendering any suggestion to them for how to proceed or where to look for an answer.

@Ben Sure, but my point is that sometimes saying that something is obvious is precisely what is needed, it is certainly not "dismissing the problem".

@AndrésE.Caicedo If the student is asking it, then presumably it's not obvious to them. That may be due to bad pedagogy from the current teacher, or from a previous teacher, or the student's own limitations, but in none of those cases is "it's obvious" a good answer. (Also, subject-matter experts are very bad judges of what is obvious to non-SMEs.)

@Geoffrey As I mentioned, I've seen graduate students ask precalculus level questions. As you say, since they asked them, etc.

You characterized it as handholding.  That is argumentum by labeling.  I gave a specific quoted response that you could analyze instead of just labeling.

@Elizabeth Henning - I agree. Otherwise professors would not be saying "It's obvious" in a patronizing way. If they really think the person who asks just needs a hint, they could just give a hint.

I advise to stick with your process.  Yes it is less efficient for you but the world of mathematics professors does not owe you a duty of personal tutoring.  ALSO, you may find some tangential gains along the way.
It's not so much that you are scared to bother the great men but that you need to build your own muscles also.  That said, I would be a little more direct and quick to ask questions of professionals at your institution (versus letters out of the blue to people offsite).  Over time you will build up a directory of people inclined to help you, knowledge of the library, benefits of Dover paperbacks, etc.
Also anyone who is teaching you, you should mercilessly exploit.  Even if they get prickly or try to brush you off..let that roll off your back like duck water and just keep grinding.  Go to every office hour and wear them down.

The last paragraph is terribly misguided and naive, even if meant as a funny exageration. This is definitely not what you want to do. If everything works well, it still has the potential to affect future letters of recommendation and the like.

Your algorithm lacks non-Internet literature search. Even in this age, the best-organized mathematical expositions are still in books and in pre-Internet papers. By excluding pre-Internet resources, you are missing on opportunity to learn the "common" background.
You should browse your library shelves (preferably physical, but virtual also work). You should search papers not simply on Internet, but on MathSciNet/Zentralblatt first.
And don't stop asking questions.

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


text:
U.S. Government Shutdown -- potential effects for the upcoming Spring 2019 semester
The U.S. government shutdown has continued through three weeks now; what would the effects be for the upcoming Spring 2019 college semester for graduate students who depend on federal student loans to pay their tuition, health insurance and fees, room and board, and costs of living?
Will such students not be in attendance for the semester, if the government shutdown is not resolved?

“Federal” student loans don’t actually come from the federal government. So I’m not sure what your question is about.

Another question would be about graduate students receiving federally funded fellowships (e.g. NSF GRFP) or working as research assistants on federal grants.  I think these are typically paid through the university, which probably already has the money, but it would be worth having an answer that addresses this with good references.

@JonCuster Federal student loans are funded by the federal government, I think?

No, they sponsor/administer the program, primarily so that it is uniformly applied across states and universities. Your local bank would be happy to discuss (federal) student loans with you.

The short answer is that the 2018-2019 US government shutdown shouldn't affect student loans for the vast majority of students, but some may have some issues.

Now, for the longer answer:
First, note that the Department of Education has contracted out loan services. In effect, the loan payouts (and repayments) are administered by non-government entities. These will still be disbursing grants and federal student loans. Second, I believe student aid programs are forward-funded to cover an academic year, rather than the calendar year, so the Spring semester should've been funded already. Third, the Department of Education is actually not affected by the 2018-2019 shutdown in the first place, as Congress has already approved the agency's spending bill.
That said, it turns out that the partial shutdown of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can cause issues for some. In particular, obtaining income documentation directly from the IRS does not appear to be possible at this time. This can affect both people repaying already incurred student loans, and students who applied for federal student aid during the shutdown - particularly lower income students, who are more likely to be flagged for income verification. So, to connect back to your question, the shutdown can affect students who didn't rely on federal loans or student aid during the Fall semester, but applied for the Spring semester, and who didn't have all necessary documentation available.
I don't know how many graduate students that would apply to, but it certainly applies to many undergraduate students. There have in fact been news stories about it. Now, I expect most universities will be flexible in how they handle these situations, perhaps accepting some forms of documentation they otherwise wouldn't have, or extending tuition deadlines. Students who find themselves in this mess should probably speak to their financial aid office.


text:
Which academic options are possible for a tenured faculty that do not involve students' mentoring?
I am a tenured associate professor at a top 20 US research university. I am publishing and getting grants. My teaching evaluations are decent.
I am realizing that I am not interested in mentoring (grad or undergrad) students (— over the last 10 years, I mentored two grad students and they changed advisor before graduating). When I teach, I am not curious about students and their backgrounds.
My relations with other faculties in the department (size < 15) have deteriorated and are, now, cold at best.
I enjoy the research portion of the work. I am in a STEM field and have had several consulting opportunities. I am currently on leave to decide whether to pursue an academic career (~ 20 years) or to resign completely.
I am wondering whether tenured professors have found academic options with limited (or without) students' mentoring and teaching?

What exactly do you find so unpleasant about service and mentoring that you think it's a dealbreaker?

Take a sabbatical and go work as a consultant or something for a year. Depending on your school/field/department/astrological sign you may be able to negotiate considerable freedom in your current position in exchange for drawing much less of your salary and making it up with outside work.

@CJ59: I am on leave without pay this year with the objective of figuring things out.

Well if you find something you like doing, you could try to negotiate your faculty position down to one class and minimal service in exchange for only drawing like two months of salary. Then you'd have two jobs and some fallback security. Or just quit being faculty.

@ElizabethHenning I find service a waste of time as senior faculties have already made the decision and simply need a vote to go forward. I feel like any idea/suggestion that I put forward has been shut down right away. As far as teaching is concerned, I dislike the attitude of entitled students (who do not want to study, ask for special arrangements because of conflicts in their personal schedule, and/or blame the instructor for their failure). About mentoring, it seems grad students in this department think they already know everything. Overall I prefer to collaborate with peers.

Quitting and taking a higher paying job offer are two extremely different things. That's an obvious no and a yes, respectively.

You could get involved in recruiting students so you can get some that suit you better.  There are psychological tricks you can learn that will cause the students in your classes to study and stop asking for favors.  Make student learning one of your areas of research.

This question has appeared in the "re-open" review queue. In my view, the question as asked is clearly both opinion-based, and unanswerable by anybody but the asker. However, it could probably be reworded to generalise it a bit and ask something like "What, options are there for somebody who has discovered that they have no interest in mentoring students" - and in that case I would happily vote to re-open.

I think the edit has fixed a lot of the problems brought up in the comments. The question is now framed as "are there academic career options that don't involve much mentoring?", and this is on-topic for Acadmia.SE

I dislike the attitude of entitled students (who do not want to study, ask for special arrangements because of conflicts in their personal schedule, and/or blame the instructor for their failure). — Repeat after me: NO.  Honestly, it sounds like you are just working at the wrong university.

While, as Jon Custer says in a comment, we aren't qualified to direct you, I'll give a bit of advice to help you think about it.
It is hardly worth spending your life doing anything that you don't enjoy. Your life isn't a "first run".
Since this is the US, though I don't know which field, I'll note that almost all academic positions involve teaching and mentoring. It is what we do to prepare the next wave of practitioners of the art. You need to be "special" in some way to avoid it. But most of the specials do it anyway. What do I mean by special? If your research is so important and you are the only one qualified to do it, then, yes, you can probably convince the administration that you should be excused from all other university participation to do it. If you were months away from curing the common cold, or cancer, sure. But the people who do that, also realize that not only their results, but their methods and ways of thought are important to pass on to the next generation, and so do, usually, mentor students.
But if you are good enough to fund yourself completely through grants, so that the University doesn't need to pay you, then you can most likely set your own working conditions. Of course, you may not need the university association at all in such a situation. Darwin, for example, funded himself pretty well, though that is harder now. But constantly writing the next grant can also take quite a lot out of you.
Alternatively, if you are so bad as a teacher that students drop you like a poison toad, then the administration will be reluctant to assign you to courses. But will also be unlikely to provide many rewards, and may even try to rid themselves of an unproductive member. Yes, unproductive, even if your research is "pretty good" (but see the superstar exception above).
But before you decide, find something that you do like and find a way to do that. Presumably you like research. If you can find a good research position you should probably explore that before you make any final decisions.
It is also possible to improve as a teacher/mentor. Doing so may actually make it more enjoyable. Whether this comes "at the expense" of your research or not depends on a lot of things. But your mind won't stop working just because you have to also prepare classes.
You will find, however, that there are trade-offs. Every job has good and bad parts. If the good parts outweigh the bad, it may be worth continuing. It isn't likely ever to be ideal. So, look very carefully at the options.
If you decide to stay, and still want to avoid student contact, you can, over time, probably work to minimize it by (a) working toward superstar status, and/or (b) taking whatever opportunities arise as they arise. This can be sabbaticals, of course, but also unpaid leaves that are funded by some grant or outside organization. If you do enough consulting, perhaps you can use the current university association to work toward the day that you can, like Darwin, self fund yourself and your research.
And if you do decide to go, try to do it gracefully, without burning bridges. Your goals in the future may change and you may want to keep open the option of returning to academia.
But be aware the the US university has a complex mission that involves teaching students. It tends to disfavor those who don't really want to participate in that mission.

The question has since been edited and this answer no longer answers it.

Depending on your field, it may be possible that you spend an increasing amount of time doing research and less time having to teach classes as you gain seniority. However, in academia, research is always going to be at least somewhat contingent on mentoring students. There is no way around this. The service aspects of the job, although usually small, will not decrease as you go along.
If you are in a STEM discipline, there are likely many jobs in "industry" that could be more fulfilling for you (and more lucrative). I would look there with strong consideration of shifting career paths. If you have obtained tenure at a quality university, you likely have much of what it takes to succeed in "industry."
Note that there is nothing magical about tenure in STEM in my opinion. My non-university job does not offer "tenure," but even if I somehow was fired, they would need to buy out my contract and I would just go and find one of dozens of STEM research jobs out there in the near geographic area. It's sort of like tenure by abundance of employers.

These things being said, note of course that almost every research job is going to come with some mentorship and service responsibilities. I work outside of academia on government funded research. We have to mentor postdocs and grad interns occasionally. I have to attend meetings and sit on committees. Getting along with colleagues is of course part of every job.
Also note that university positions have certain job benefits that most people do not get. Academics often have large winter and summer breaks. You set your own hours. You have access to a large university library. Sometimes faculty get discounts on university events and facility access (gyms, museums, concerts, etc.)

Probably not everyone has the same view as me, but your department seems to: the job description of "professor" means more than just doing research on your own. Teaching and service are important parts of the job.
It is possible to find tenure-track jobs that are more focused on research and may be completely without classroom responsibilities, but unless you are such an important researcher that there are funds set aside for you to be your own personal research department, even research-heavy positions are going to expect that you mentor others: if not students, then postdocs; if not postdocs, then other tenure-track faculty. If you aren't a more senior professor, those latter options won't be available to you.
I think you can consider other types of positions in academia, but if you are miserable doing key parts of your job description it is time to find another job. However, there may also be other approaches that let you find some appreciation of the parts of your job that you don't prefer: not everyone values the different parts of their job equally. That assumes, of course, that you aren't causing harm to other people in the process.

"It is possible to find tenure-track jobs that are more focused on research and may be completely without classroom responsibilities" - I have one of these positions (90% Research/10% Service) and there's still a substantial mentoring component - indeed, because there's no teaching, this gets weighted pretty heavily.

@Fomite Yes, as I mentioned shortly after the part you quote, "even research-heavy positions are going to expect that you mentor others."

@BryanKrause I was more...providing empirical evidence for your answer at the somewhat extreme ends of that particular spectrum.

It's a lot to walk away from.  Also, we can't really tell how good the consulting opportunities are and/or if you could get a job somewhere.
If you do walk, the same issues might arise on the job.  Maybe there are some very select fields where you can just be an individual researcher genius but many industrial companies (and McKinsey and Goldman) will require you to interact with colleagues.  If anything it may be more possible to be asocial in academia.
Hard to really advise more without knowing what is troubling you.  I would definitely look before you leap and not just leave out of pique.

I think it quite obvious what made him anxious is the inability to mentor students and the cold relationship with other faculty members, which I think made his life as hell. However, if I were in your shoes, I would take a sabbatical leave and do consulting job industry.

@Monika You are correct. In a smallish department, I can not hide from mentoring and/or service without impacting my yearly evaluation. The chair proposed more teaching to reduce service and/or mentoring.

I fully agree with Buffy that you should try to find out what you actually like doing before quitting. The exception would be if you dislike your current situation enough that it's detrimental to your mental and physical health. Either way, use your current leave to explore your options. Now for the part of my answer that started as a comment, but got out of hand:
You don't actually state in your question whether you still* enjoy doing research or not. If you don't, well, that's the three main aspects of academia out the window (research, teaching, service). In that case, a university position doesn't sound at all right for you. You might as well abandon ship, go to industry, and make more money. You might enjoy working there more, or not - but be able to retire earlier... Of course, industry has its own downsides, and it's not exactly devoid of entitled people, or decisions made over your head either.
However, if you still* have a passion for research, and since you're in a STEM field, maybe look into working at a non-university research institution. This could be at a national laboratory, or an industry research lab. Certainly national labs tend to lead to more active research work, and collaboration with peers than is typical for university professors. You might still find yourself doing some mentoring - at least for postdocs - but in a different climate.
*Presumably you at least used to, and hopefully you still do.

Only you can answer that question. But, other have made similar choices before. Read the "Working Life" in Science Magazine and other Science Career articles. Many of the guest authors talk about their transitions away from academia, including tenured professors.
The Versatile PhD has many resources as well about life away from academia.


text:
Should I do a doctorate straight after my master or work for a while first?
I have a BSc in Software Engineering, and I am now doing an MS in Software Engineering (taking more advanced courses and such).
Once I am done with my MS I would like to do a PhD in a software engineering related research topic, but I am not sure if I should get a job for a few years after my MS - or jump straight into a PhD?
With regards to long term goals I do not think I will want to do full-time teaching but I would like to do some part-time teaching (at University level, not picky about graduate vs undergraduate) alongside a professional career.
At this point I am not considering the monetary aspect of a PhD vs. a job. I would simply like to know if one approach is academically and professionally better than the other.
Thank you.
EDITIdeally, I would like to work with new, cutting edge technologies, and be an "expert" in my field - hence why I thought of doing a PhD. I would love to perform research as long as I can then apply the results in an industrial setting. At this moment I do not think I am interested in a pure research career.
EDIT 2
Thanks to everyone for their answers, it'l help me a lot. This isn't really a right/wrong answer question so unless an answer gets a huge amount of upvotes I won't be picking an answer.
I guess I should also add what I am currently leaning towards.
Bearing in mind I still have one year to make up my mind, right now I am thinking about one, maximum two, years of work then back to school for a PhD.
...but time will tell!

A PhD is primarily for training you to do research. You haven't mentioned whether you are interested in a research-oriented career (in academia or in industry)?

I've updated my question!

Work first. There're many reasons for this:

It's not true that you can't work with cutting-edge technologies without a PhD. You certainly can, and it might even be a better use of your time since you avoid the administrative processes that you must do with a PhD. Check out the various graduate programs that employers offer. There might be high entry requirements, but if you can do PhD studies you can clear that bar also.
You likely earn more. It's not just for the next 3-5 years that you need for a PhD. If you do a PhD, after you graduate, you'll need to find a job. If you get a job now, you'll already have a job. If you do well you might even command a higher salary in 5 years' time compared to entering the market as a fresh PhD.
You might find you don't need a PhD. This could especially be the case if you work with other PhD-holders. You might find that you have the same duties, or that you're already capable of doing what they do. In this case a PhD is not very useful for your career and you might as well stay put.
If #3 doesn't happen, then you have a better idea why you're doing a PhD. You know what you want to learn, why you want to learn it, and how that skill is going to be useful for you after you graduate.

It's my observation that people who work first and then go to a PhD are much more likely to have thought seriously about why they're studying. That is a good thing. I'm not saying you shouldn't do a PhD, but you should have good, clear reasons for why you're doing it to avoid possible future regret.

Nice answer, is it valid enough if the field is something like Physics or Maths and not engineering?

@justauser I don't see why it wouldn't be valid. Is there any reason you think you won't?

I thought there could be a difference since engineering is more applied than Physics/Maths. There aren't many Physics/Maths jobs out there.

On a cautionary note regarding working first - I decided to work first, as there are a number of advantages. I am now 33 and have finally applied a second time this past month (the first time was 8 years ago, and much less coordinated). I no longer have strong academic connections which I can use as references. Ultimately, life got complicated and busy, and it took me 12 years to apply for the doctorate I've long sought.
I believe I am no longer an ideal candidate as a result - while I've extensive work experience, am (more) mature and know how to work hard, I have been too busy working to demonstrate serious research ability. Additionally, should a program accept me, I have fewer work years left to return to the field than a younger individual with stronger references.
As a further note, I frankly don't need a PhD - only if I'd like to continue along my current career track (web developer, just switched to embedded systems due to tremendous preparation and good fortune). My father (an academic himself) calls it "an expensive hobby", and additionally points out there are a lot more PhDs than jobs for them.
I still feel there are substantial advantages to working for a time first - just, be aware that you will need a specific actionable plan for keeping strong ties to academia, or you will face increased challenges getting accepted in the future.
Edit 2.7 years later: I am now in a program and making progress towards my PhD. I've found the work and time management skills involved in research to be very different than those involved in production programming, and it has been a time consuming shift in mentality (though perhaps no worse than student to researcher). It is a career change (developer to researcher), and I am a novice again, which is sometimes frustrating compared the the honed skillset I am using much less frequently than before. For me the shift is worth obtaining my personal goals - but I would never recommend it to everyone :).
Regarding keeping ties to academia - it is hard to stand in two boats. Employers expect real commitment, and academics are busy. With a "publish or perish" mindset it is hard to devote resources to a long term long shot with low payoff. There might be no easy answer.
Perhaps a series of internships is the best route forward if some industry experience is desired. However it is unlikely you'd become a principal or lead software engineer and put in charge of large and important projects without significant time and commitment. My experience is difficult (and likely undesirable) to replicate.

In some ways it is easier to continue directly to the doctorate. The letters you get in support of an application will be fresher and academically oriented. You won't have to deal with getting "rusty" on concepts or behind the times on theory.
It can also be difficult to return to life as a student if you get used to living off a better salary and also gain some obligations that might be hard to deal with as a student.
You can, of course, use either path to explore whether it is the right path, but it is, I think easier to move from academia to industry than the other way.
In some fields, of course, industrial experience is valued and if you had the right position, say at Google or similar, it would be helpful. But most of the people reading your application will be more familiar with situations of people moving to a higher level in academia than moving from industry to academia.
That said, a decision you make now doesn't have to be your final answer for your life.

"It can also be difficult to return to life as a student if you get used to living off a better salary and also gain some obligations that might be hard to deal with as a student."  That's true.  But can look at it the other way on "obligations".  Deferring family, marriage, house is a frequent down side of grad school.  The infertile 20s...

Many schools will allow you to teach part time with a masters.  So this argues for the work experience.
Fields differ.  In chemistry or physics, I would say push on to the Ph.D.  For one thing it is more the norm to go through, for another it is sometimes perceived as the entry level degree (big chemical companies like to hire Ph.D. chemist vs. BS/MS chemE.
In engineering, I would lean more to the work option versus the advanced degree.  Software probably even more so.  Many great coders have no degree.
Finally, while you asked us to factor out money, there are a lot of social rewards from being an earner versus a student.  It's a good thing to learn what work is like.
Give what you have said about yourself and the field, I would lean towards getting a job.  Can go back later (if you miss it). Also, if you get burnt out or need a break or stalled out for promotions or laid off during a recession, you can consider further schooling at that time.

Work first.
The practical experience will guide your thoughts and interests as a Ph.D. You'll also known your attainable market worth before the doctorate. Between BSc and MSc should be a noticeable difference. Same with between MSc and PhD, but you'll never be able to gauge this (and know confident where you stand) if you haven't worked a full-time job with the MSc first. One year is enough. Any longer then 3 years, and the great pay may become a deterrent (opportunity cost). Sounds strange, but maybe two 18 month stints at 2 different companies, for proper contrast, if you can pull it off.
Consider full-time work after the MSc, as research. You cannot understand industry form the outside. Get in there. Collect info. Understand the good and bad sides. Work on production-level projects, and in teams (good or bad). In short. Don't just jump from MSc to PhD.
Was going to end there, but... have you looked into what school you would attend? I get the sense this isn't about prestige. Therefore, I suggest taking time (i.e. while you work) to look into programs abroad.(MSc and PhD programs in many countries can be cheap. Especially if you've saved you own money - from working!) Great opportunity to combine additional study with a different life experience.

I am already doing my MS in a different continent than my BSc so doing a PhD in another country still would be even better! I don't really care about where the school is or what it's called - I'm just looking for good quality study/research. Thank you for you answer!

@Goofynose. Sweet. Hope you're enjoying it. This site may provide some inspiration for locations: https://www.findaphd.com/

In my opinion (as a non-studying BSc post grad with a view to attain MSc and PhD) there are a couple of contradictory answers.
One, it is easier to continue your academia non-stop so the self education and acquired knowledge doesn't stagnate (use it or lose it).
Two, it is a very valuable skill set to have experience in the field of a workplace, even one unrelated to your studies.
Best compromise is a year as an intern at a placing relevant to your chosen area of study. That way you get the best of both worlds. Your knowledge doesn't stagnate, in fact it may likely proliferate, and two you can show real world experience on your CV/resume.
Some employers are known to look with disdain on pure academics, especially those who 'worked their way up the ranks'.


text:
Government Shutdown - application deadlines for fellowships and grants
Will application deadlines for federally-funded fellowships and grants be extended, due to the ongoing government shutdown here in the States?  Is there even anyone to contact (and get a response from) at this time, regarding application deadlines?

NDSEG deadline for 2019 is already over.  It looks like their 2020 deadline is unchanged.  Their funding may not be impacted (I can't keep track of which agencies are shutdown and which aren't).  I know EIA is still funded so I imaging all of DOE is.  But I really don't know for sure.  In any case, I would just treat it as same deadline.
When I did stuff like this you had to actually mail off for paper applications.  But I imagine this stuff is all on the net.   So really nothing stopping you from doing applications.

Why do you believe that the question is about NDSEG deadlines? And what does that acronym stands for? The same goes for EIA and DOE.

I was just adding that.  Earlier person had noted NSF.  NDSEG is probably the Pepsi to NSF's Coke in terms of numbers.

It's not that hard to look up which agencies are affected or not before writing an answer... DOE and DOD are indeed unaffected, see Wikipedia.

They are common abbreviations in US agency science discussions.  If you don't know them, GIYF.  Don't get bent about this being US specific, since this is a discussion of OUR shutdown.  Now the yellow vest thing or Brexit.  That's someone else's problem.  But this is ours.  ;-)

Nice add, Anyon.  (Of course you could make the same point about question askers.)

"DOE" is potentially ambiguous: Energy or Education?

Not in context:  "I know EIA is still funded so I imaging [sic] all of DOE is."

Ok.  I added some links which may be helpful.

@guest This is unrelated to your answer, but are this account and this account also you?

@NateEldredge DOE is always Energy. Education is ED. And DOT is Transportation, Treasury is TREAS. As mentioned, it's standard lingo in the field.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation should be moved to chat. If you're reading this and feel the need to add your two cents, please go post it in that chat room.

For the National Science Foundation (NSF)
If your grant or fellowship is funded by the NSF, then the deadline remains the same.
From the NSF page, https://www.nsf.gov/shutdown/grantees.jsp, Information About the Government Shutdown for NSF Proposers and Grantees:

Impact on Existing Deadlines
During a lapse in appropriations, NSF will continue to accept proposal
  submissions pursuant to existing deadlines.

You should read this as "they will accept your proposal, will not process it, and the dead-line remains unchanged" during the shutdown.
You will not get any answer to your email during the shutdown.
Quoting the same page:

Responses to any inquiries received regarding upcoming deadlines, including proposal preparation, will be deferred until normal operations resume.

Update
https://www.nsf.gov/ says:

With the enactment of continuing appropriations through February 15, 2019, NSF is working to resume operations. Employees should report to work on their next scheduled work day.  For most staff, that will be Monday, January 28, 2019. NSF headquarters will be open to all staff starting at 6:00 a.m. Monday, January 28, 2019.


text:
Why don't some U.S. colleges celebrate American national holidays?
I was just catching up with a friend about the plunging temperatures in the towns that we live in, and they brought up that they actually have classes today, on Martin Luther King day, which is a national holiday.
Shouldn't colleges observe national holidays and give faculty, students and staff the day off?
(If location matters, we're in the Northeast region.)

And here I am at work on a national holiday, at a US national lab. (In my case, the lab works a bunch of the minor federal holidays and we take Christmas to New Years off instead). Unless it is a federal college, they don't have to take MLK off, and not taking it off may work out better with respect to class schedules and making up the time (most federal holidays are Mondays, so that messes with Monday classes way more than other days, for example).

Do all States have the same holidays or do they recognize the ones they wish... And yes I have Mondays messed up with national holidays - not much of a holiday when you have to replace the teaching hours...

@SolarMike: Each state sets its own holidays.  Most of them observe most or all of the federal holidays, but they can leave some out if they choose, and/or add more of their own.  However, universities aren't necessarily required to observe state holidays either, not even state universities.

@SolarMikes yes, all states do, but they don't have to. MLK day used to be MLK/Robert E Lee day in some of the South and Civil Rights Day in the North. States can add extra holidays and ignore any they want. Employers can do what they want (although they might have to pay extra).

This is probably a better question at politics.se as they can probably tell you the underlying reasons.

Sort of depends on what you mean by "shouldn't colleges observe the holidays?"  If you mean "Are they legally required to?" then the answer is no, they are not.  If you mean "Would it be a good idea for them to do so?" then that's a matter of opinion which can't really be answered.  If you mean "What would be the pros and cons of doing so?" then clarify your question.

I think part of the issue here is the difference between a 'federal holiday' and a 'national holiday'. The US has the former, but not the latter. US Federal holidays are not binding on non-federal (US government) entities.

Note that class breaks and faculty/staff holidays are not necessarily equivalent. Some schools give staff a day off on certain holidays but continue to hold classes, those required to teach are entitled a discretionary day off. Conversely, student holidays, like spring break or study periods, do not apply to faculty or staff.

As an additional data-point, Cambridge University almost always holds classes on the two Bank Holidays in May.  (Other Bank Holidays are fall outside Term, so classes wouldn't be held anyway.)

Serious (i.e. non-rhetorical) counter question: we live in a world where many businesses (especially in the service industry) are open at or very close to 365 days per year, in spite of numerous federal holidays. Why would you expect a college/university to be different? I realize that in many respects being an academic is quite different from a normal job, but that in a sense makes the case worse: there's always more research to be done (not to mention the teaching load and associated duties).

My university celebrates the holidays on different days to avoid disrupting classes. For example, President's Day was 'celebrated' in late December when the campus was closed.

Penn State had no classes on MLK day but required staff to be in the office. Students carried out public service (or went drinking).
We also ignored Presidents' Day and Columbus Day completely.

The observance of holidays in the United States is a complicated issue.
Holidays declared by the federal government are generally (but not universally) observed by state governments, which oversee public universities here. Private institutions, on the other hand, have no obligation to observe those holidays, and can choose to close or remain open according to their own decisions about what best serves their students’ needs. For example, my undergraduate institution did not take any days off from the first day of classes in the fall semester, but did provide a week’s break corresponding to Thanksgiving. It’s an unusual arrangement but perfectly legal.
It should also be mentioned that while universities have core “business hours” where faculty are expected to be present, in reality, faculty largely choose their own working hours.

Moreover, it can even happen that public (state) universities don't observe the holidays that their state government does.

Academics don't normally get "days off". Holidays are just work days by another name. Note that in the US, there are almost no National Universities (the service universities like West Point being the major exception). Most universities are actually independent of any government control though almost all have some government (usually State) oversight.
Many universities also recognize a number of religious holidays and these vary depending on the location. In New York, for example, many don't hold classes on Jewish holidays. This sometimes makes it difficult to put together a schedule meeting all constraints.
So, it varies and there is not general rule. Some holidays are more likely to be taken than others, also. But still, it can vary. It can even vary at the same institution from year to year.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The key point is that Martin Luther King Day is a federal holiday, and only the federal government is bound to observe those. State governments and private corporations are free to choose their own holiday schedules.

Isn't that true for all US holidays? There's nothing unique about MLK Day in this respect.

@Barmar - MLK day is one of the federal holidays. States and "private sector employers" are free to choose their own public holidays. (my point being, what's a "US holiday" ... ? - the first question you always have to ask someone is if they have it off anyway)

Aren't Independence Day and President's Day also federal holidays? What were you trying to suggest by singling out MLK Day? Or is it just because it's the one mentioned in the question?

@Barmar This answer talks about all federal holidays, and uses MLK Day as an example, since it was the example in the question. I don't see what your problem with this answer is...

When I first read it, I interpreted it as saying something special about MLK Day, not just using it as an example of federal holidays. It could be noted that some federal holidays are observed more widely than others -- there are practically no private or public organizations that don't observe Independence Day, and it took 14 years for all states to make MLK Day a state holiday.

It's common in the US for some more recent Federal holidays to not be observed by a lot of the private sector or even state government.  MLK, Veteran's Day, Columbus Day are the ones.

Also Washington's Birthday (a.k.a. Presidents' Day.)

@reirab - and Lincoln's birthday as well. They used to be two separate days off from school (since their birthdays are different), but both in February. Then President's day condensed it to one...

Related reading: Observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day (from Wikipedia).

My institution has a very tight, set schedule that relies on classes beginning and ending on certain days—many years our first day of class is actually Labor Day.
Beyond the logistical concerns, our community also had a conversation specifically about the best way to observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. This was before my time here, but the consensus between both faculty and concerned students was that it would be better to hold classes and have events on campus focused on MLK's legacy, rather than treating it like a vacation day. My children's schools have made a similar choice. This is also the practice for Veteran's Day and, to a lesser extent, a few other holidays.
Personally, I can appreciate the philosophy that it's better to actively celebrate these civic holidays* as an academic community, rather than celebrating mainly by sleeping in or going shopping—even if sometimes it feels like we're the only people in the state who have to work on a given day.

*Labor Day is in a rather different category, since it was initially conceived specifically as a day of rest for laborers.

In addition to what others have posted, my university would forgo minor holidays (like Labor Day, Columbus Day, etc.) and give us a week off in the Fall and the Spring semesters. So, overall, we traded a bunch of 3 day weekends for 2 discrete, but longer periods off.

Interesting that you consider Labor Day a minor holiday on a similar level to Columbus Day. In my experience, almost everybody has Labor Day off while Columbus Day is much more of a mixed bag.


text:
What are the main reasons postdoc applicants get rejected?
I'm applying for postdoc jobs right now (math). I was put on the short-list for one position and had an interview but the PI for that postdoc made the offer to someone else. I'm starting to get discouraged and wondering what I'm doing wrong. I showed my research statement to a few faculty members and they said it was fine. I also got a letter from one very well-known mathematician. Maybe I didn't make enough faculty contacts? Was I supposed to have a contact at each place I applied to? Maybe what I am doing is not trendy enough.
Question 1: What do I have to do to get noticed by the hiring committees?
Question 2: What are people getting postdocs doing that people who don't get postdocs aren't doing?

Some apply for 5 or more, others 10 or more, even others 100 or more, so why expect to get an offer from the first one or two? Applying for jobs can mean many applications and rejections... Grit your teeth and persevere...

You can ask the PI to give you some feedback. They might not answer but it's worth trying, and it's very helpful when they do.

@Erwan, I don't agree with that, it just decreases from your value! Just move on, it does not mean something wrong, in the end when there are two good candidates to the position, some personal preferences may play a role. In the end, I think it is normal, just keep trying in other projects and I am pretty sure you can find the right one that fits you.

@Monkia in some countries you have the right to ask for feedback and if you wish to ask then they have to respond...

@Monkia although it's human and sometimes hard to avoid, I think it's unhealthy to take negative feedback as a personal criticism. Ideally one should not feel bad about negative feedback, it's just an external evaluation of our actions; reflecting on it can can help us improve and do better next time.

@Monkia I have been asked for feedback by a rejected candidate and I have given it. It helped the former candidate to improve their performance and they have now a permanent position. There is nothing shameful about asking for feedback, although the interviewer may be wary of possible legal repercussions and may choose not to answer.

There are two big issues: competition and potentially poor fit. Either can knock you out. In some fields, at some times, the competition is fierce. Be happy (a bit) that you made the short list.
On the other side of the coin, it is possible that a candidate is seen as a poor fit for the position. This is more likely to happen early in the process unless it comes down to personal issues - arrogance, or indifference, or ...
Your materials can be fine and you can be fine, but someone else is just seen to be a better fit at the moment. Soldier on.
You may not need the rest of the advice, below, since you seem to be able to reach the shortlist, but for others, note that your written materials have to be positive/strong enough to move you from the "all applicants" pile into the "we should look at this person" pile. The second pile is very short and if you don't get into it at a quick reading, you are done. Once you are in the shortlist it becomes more of a personal and less of an institutional "game". If you know you are a marginal fit for a position, don't bother applying except in exceptional circumstances.

You might think about stressing your "flexibility". Especially if you have explored various areas.

"If you know you are a marginal fit for a position, don't bother applying except in exceptional circumstances." - that's a bad advice. Usually it does not take much time and effort to apply for a postdoc position, so every position that looks good is worth it even if there are better candidates than yourself.

@AlexeyB., exceptional circumstances include being especially needy or a lack of candidates generally. Others, I suppose. But it is better to tailor your application that to just broadcast a general appeal.

@Gradstudent It does help a lot if people on the hiring side personally know your advisor, co-authors, or references, but that's not 100% necessary to score an interview.

@AlexeyB., I also worry about the situation in which you don't get a position this year and need to go back the next. It seems better if you haven't tried and failed earlier at that same place. Save your ammunition. Exceptional times - exceptional measures.

@Buffy Or sometimes you can be considered for another position you did not know about.

@Buffy I'll agree that it is better to apply to more suitable positions first.

@Buffy how exactly do you imagine postdoc applications work? "Hey I understand that you spoke to one of my colleagues in a different department and it didn't work out... so stop emailing me you may never work here"

@CJ59, well, no, not like that, anyway.

The job market for postdocs is such that most new PhDs will have to contact 50-odd people to get maybe 5 interviews and 2 offers. Unless you meet someone at a conference that you click with, job searches are the academic version of Tinder; it's just a numbers game. Your PhD advisor can set you up a bit, but unless they're some superstar it's mostly on you to keep swiping.
If you aren't even getting replies to emails, you should work on your approach - having your advisor email a rec letter at the same time as your initial email is something that I've seen work well. You should also not take being ignored personally - usually your email just falls off the first page of the inbox and is therefore gone forever. You can follow up after a couple days if you don't get a response.

If you got to the interview stage, you probably aren’t doing anything wrong.  The reality of today’s job market is that employers have the advantage because there’s an oversupply of candidates; paring down a large list of applicants is difficult enough, discerning who should be a job in a final pool of 3 or 4 highly qualified applicant is a nightmare.
It’s always good to remember that people don’t hire CVs: they hire other people.   This means there’s a human element that enters in the selection process, and at the end of the process this human element can rarely be controlled, lest you are obviously much more qualified than the competing candidates.  Basically, it can come down to pure luck.
You might have been bested because the other candidate was a slightly better fit for that specific position, because the supervisor of this other candidate or a referee for this other candidate knows the person offering the position, because the person offering the position has historically had good candidates from the school of this other applicant, because this other candidate publishes in this or that journal that is favoured by the employer etc, i.e. a whole host of factors which have minimal weight until someone has to decide between two more or less equally qualified candidates.  Maybe this other candidate had just one more citation than you did at the time of the decision.
You cannot change any of the above factors; it’s unlikely that people who get the positions do something really different.  If it’s just bad luck then one can take solace in the fact that there usually is a very restricted number of candidates on the final shortlist, so that every time you make it to a shortlist you increase the chances of all these infinitesimal variations will go your way this one next time.

I think postdoc hiring is much like any other hiring process. As others have pointed out, there are too many qualified applicants for too few positions. This makes it easy to toss someone out of contention for soft reasons such as perceived lack of fit.
If you think of it from the hiring PI's point of view, they likely have restricted funds, meaning that the postdoc is a huge investment for them. Furthermore, even in a best case scenario it would likely take a new postdoc 6mo-1yr to get "up to speed" in a new environment, at which point it the PI has already has a sunk cost in case the postdoc is not performing to expectation. Therefore, this is a decision they quite literally can't afford to get wrong!
This leads to the old adage that it's not what you know, it's who you know. A prospective hiring PI is more likely to take someone from a department they're familiar with, or from a group they already know quite well. In that sense, probably the best thing you can do (if you're not already doing it) is to talk with your PhD advisor, or other members of your current department that you're friendly with. Do they know any of the people you'd like to work with? Could they send an e-mail or make a phone call on your behalf?
In my experience, while this wouldn't guarantee a job, it would almost certainly put you on the shortlist.

I think your low publications (none other than your thesis, see your question of January 31th 2019) is hurting you.
This answer is not meant to be cutting.  But to be analytical.  You ask why.  I see this as a big factor.
I have a stack of resumes to review.  Some have publications.  Some don't.  Not hard to understand that I (or many other people) will apply a filter and cut the ones with no publications.
We don't live in an ideal world where every individual will get infinite time spent on analyzing his case or will always find a spot.  People will apply common sense filters.  I hire a postdoc, I want someone who can produce and do so relatively independently.  This is demonstrated by his publication count.  I want to see some papers coming out (or at least in review) from someone in the second half of their doctorate. This is an indicator of their productivity that I will use to judge if they will be productive as a postdoc.

In my experience the biggest issue is eligibility to work in the UK. If you are (currently) a non eu citizen and any of the other candidates is appointable then we can not hire you, even if you are the best candidate. The situation is the same in the USA.

This is incorrect. First of all, a preference may be given to UK/EU but surely not any other candidate. Secondly, it is for PI, not HR, to rank the candidates and draw the line.

@DmitrySavostyanov I could not find any information that UK universities are exempt from resident labour market test (neither are phd level researchers in the shortage occupation list), so they may have to consider UK/EEA applicants first. This raises the bar for being hired from being slightly better than other applicants to not having any competition from the whole EEA. Obviously, this will be different in other countries.

If a UK/EEA candidate is appointable then they must be appointed before a non-EU candidate. And yes HR can and do override the PI. This is why you will see very strange and detailed lists of job requirements in adverts to make sure the prefered candidate is appointable,


text:
Should I admit that I was a first-year PhD student in future interviews?
As you may know, I was a first-year student and forced to leave and it was a long story, I have posted here. My question is: since I pledged myself to be honest and tell the truth, the interviewers when they hear that they are negatively affected. Recently, I have applied for a position and I was shortlisted to 4, and then when they heard my case they told me we want someone who can commit, I told them my story positively and never mentioned any negativity. I have received an email from ex-PI who forced me to leave asking that he received an email from the interviewer and I saw the email that he is extremely interested, and the ex-PI asked me what I have told them about the lab so that he can be consistent with my words, honestly, I didn't have a good intention from his email, I have been always honest and candid, but the ex-PI used to lie based on multiple situations. I have been rejected. I am struggling as I was blamed and honestly, the reason for leaving is that I am an independent researcher and ex-PI didn't like that. However, I look through interview embarrassed sometimes and a nervous little bit because of their reaction like have a taboo. I don't want to lose any future interviews, I have noticed that students apply elsewhere and don't mention they are a current student in a specific program, however, my situation is awkward as I spent one year and my name is still indexed in their website although my webpage is removed. Please, suggestion, should I hide it, but I tell myself it isn't ethical.

This is a related question of mine from my deleted account, however, I didn't help me: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/121003/wondering-wether-to-tell-the-truth-to-another-phd-program-that-i-have-resigned-f

How else would you explain that time in your life?

I didnot get you! I am struggling between ethics and how interviewers suspicious because I left after one year ( forced).

It is typical in applying for a job, graduate program, etc, to account for how you've spent your past time. If you are an undergraduate student for some years, then maybe a master's student, and then there is a gap in your resume from when you were a PhD student, it will jump out at anyone reviewing your application. It doesn't look good how you've left your program, but it looks worse if you have no answer for how you spent that time.

@Bryan, I think this out of scope as my situation is not like that! I managed to get grants from a top-tier conference and publishing part of my work. I did a lot of work this year, it isn't my problem because I had an asshole and toxic ex-PI, I need candid advice.  It is unfair because interviewer always biased to PI and think there is a hidden in my personality because I did publish in three top conferences ( two of the workshops), so the question they ask why you left.

It is typical in applying for a job, graduate program, etc, to account for how you've spent your past time. If you are an undergraduate student for some years, then maybe a master's student, and then there is a gap in your resume from when you were a PhD student, it will jump out at anyone reviewing your application.
It doesn't look good that you've left your program, but it looks worse if you have no answer for how you spent that time, and worst of all if it becomes clear you intended to mask your time as a previous grad student.
No matter how you go about this, it looks bad that you did not complete a PhD program. Applicants for a PhD are assessed primarily based on their perceived likelihood to be a successful PhD student. As a past unsuccessful PhD student, that perceived likelihood decreases, especially if your past PI says bad things about you and people believe them.
In the short term, you likely need to gather some new references. You need people who can vouch for your ability and potential as a researcher. Depending on your field, the availability of such positions may be limited, but in my own field I would advise taking up employment in an academic lab as a technician. The barrier to entry is much less than for a PhD position where an institution is dedicating themselves to you over several years. Your PI in that lab will be able to recommend you to programs that you subsequently apply to, and confirm to them that your prior experience was a fluke.
You asked for candid advice, and I am doing my best to give it. If I was reviewing your application, and saw that you left a PhD program after a year, I would not want to take you on as a student. Regardless of whose fault it is, there are many many qualified candidates for most PhD programs. If you got grants and publications, that may help, but you still have clearly had a personal conflict with your past PI and have accused them of many bad things. The last thing I would want would be to take you on as a student, bright as you may be, and then be accused of similar things myself. I wouldn't have any objective information to assess whether you are a victim as you claim or not, unless someone else, whose input I trust, gives me information about the situation.

I didnot had any kind of personal conflict with this PI, I vouch, he is unstable because he did that to another senior student didnot allow him to defend after spending four years.

I had meeting with HR and head of the school and this conversation I recorded it to have it evidence. They know that he is toxic and the student who didnot defend also published in top-tier conferences. There many cases, not only students, but workers. The head of school told me if I were in your position, I look for another program, I told her that I worked hard and so and there is no reason to stop, she told me I know, but if you stay you may would have the same situation like the other senior student

@Monkia What you are describing is a personal conflict: your wishes and the wishes of your PI are in conflict, and now they say bad things about you. I'm not blaming you or saying it's your fault, but it doesn't matter what you vouch: a stranger doesn't know if they can trust your vouch or not. If the head of the school will vouch for you, then that's good, you should ask for their reference to support your application.

I had a references from a very renowned researcher in our field, but the problem, I dont know why the interviewer go and asked him, this ex-PI is doubled faced and threated me after resignation while presenting my work at workshop in conference, it is shocking. It is unfair!

Yes, it is unfair. Do you want advice or do you want support? I'm giving you advice. I've seen you post a lot here, so I have some sense of how you are approaching the situation, and I have to say I think it is not good. By repeating over and over how you have been wronged without being able to see the situation from the perspective of your potential future advisor I think you will have a lot of difficulty.

Maybe, but I have never been in that situation, and the consequences are not easy at all. I am hard-worker and I just want to pursue my goal, that is it.

In addition to Bryan's excellent answer, it should be noted that depending on the policies of the school you are applying to, omitting details of attending a previous PhD program from your application can be considered sufficient grounds to revoke offers of admission. Therefore, if you are directly asked about your past experience, you should not attempt to lie about it, either directly or by omission.

I see, but still, the problem is the reason I have mentioned that they are a good research group, but I wasn't fit for their research direction. Honestly, I don't know how to formulate the real reason as I don't understand yet. I have an interview next week and if I have been asked directly, I will answer, but I am afraid I would stick in non-positive impression since @Bryan mentioned there are many and many good students, I m really baffled, hopefully, that would change.

When evaluating an applicant people look at tangibles and non tangibles. Tangibles would be publications, research attachments, grades, awards etc. Intangibles are things like your personal statement, and more importantly your referees.
If your only reference is from your advisor you may be in trouble. You need to find a good academic figure who’ll vouch for your research potential and explain the situation with your advisor. If you can’t think of one then you may have a problem getting in. If your advisor is actively sabotaging you then it may border on unprofessional conduct but I don’t know for sure. It may be wise to reach out to a department head or student ombudsman who’ll probably just ask the advisor to let you go in peace.
Sorry about your situation, it sucks...

My advice is to not mention a single year of work somewhere else.  It gets lost in the noise when you are looking back at your life from many years in the future.  Plus Europe can be very fussy and cloistered and cronyish.
Actually maybe you should bail from academia.  Go drive trucks in the Permian.  Well maybe that is a little much.  But get involved in US E&P.  It's still America out there.  At least for now.

Downvoting because of second paragraph which to me seems nonconstructive advice to OP who appears to greatly desire to continue in academia.

The gelogic time period?

@AzorAhai More likely the basin.

Based on prior posts, OP seems to be in Northern Europe.

@anyon Huh, never heard of it


text:
Why are some graduate schools' students so much more productive?
I'm a math PhD student. I've noticed that graduating students in top 5-10 schools, by the time they apply for postdocs, will regularly have several math research papers and several articles in preparation, usually with senior faculty. In contrast, at my (Research I university) PhD program most students will only graduate with 1 publication - their thesis. I came to graduate school with a solid knowledge of the "standard undergraduate math major curriculum" but no graduate courses, and no real idea of which adviser I wanted or what area of math, and I struggled to get to the current state of knowledge in a specific field. Looking back I don't see how it's possible for me to write several good papers during grad school. I just don't understand the phenomenon that I'm observing. I definitely think that I've worked hard. My guess is that most entering math grad students at top schools will have taken math graduate courses and will have already been reading research papers and know which research projects they want to work on - in other words, they are 2-3 years ahead of the game.
Question: Is there something fundamentally different about these top programs, independent of the knowledge, work ethic, etc. of the grad students, that makes creating an impressive publication record easier and/or more efficient? Is there some "secret"? What are the underlying mechanisms that allow students at Stanford or MIT to be so much more impressive on average than a student at a less prestigious place?

Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/154/44249

Have you tried looking at the details of their output?  Was it LPUs?  Easier topics?  Being second author?  Or are they just really cranking it?  Do your own little analysis of the phenomenon.

@guest I mean: first-year postdocs receiving invitations to speak at seminars at top places, IAS, invitations to Oberwolfach, etc.

I guess question remains.

Consider it a function  u= f(x, y, z) where x is field/project area (e.g. descriptive stats may be easier than being Andrew Wiles), y is approach (LPUs, confidence, writing well, etc.) and z is just pure kicking ass discovering math.  Examine it.  You are closer to this than we are.

Probably down to attitude - at Stanford etc they really want to learn / shine ...

Many, and perhaps most, students at the top schools come in with a background well beyond the "standard undergraduate curriculum."

What you see coming out are the effects of the selection on the entering students. What separates them is how much they know when they finish undergraduate studies and how hard they work. A lot of these students have already studied the equivalent of the standard US doctoral coursework when they enter grad school, some have already started doing research, and they have passion and work to back it up. Once there they are advised by a highly selected subset of faculty. If you take the best raw material and give it the best treatment, you're likely to get a good outcome.

The "fundamental difference" that you talk about should arise in three things:

The fact that a student made into the top 5-10 schools implies (not perfectly, of course) that the student has acquired a good amount of knowledge in the field and that he or she works very hard. This means the filtering, and thus a difference arises even before the program could start. It's not hard to assume that someone who gets into a top 10 school has worked harder in life to get there (of course, there are always exceptions). Thus, such a student is bound to be more ambitious, and would not settle for that one thesis at the end of their course.
Even if you're not that ambitious, seeing many peers around you publishing papers may encourage you or add pressure to do exactly the same. In life, we often try to rise up to the standards around us. If you're in a less reputed college with less motivated peers, you might be satisfied with good grades and a thesis. But if you're walking amongst other motivated people, you'd soon feel lesser and try to get on par.
Good schools attract good faculty. It's much easier to write a research paper and publish it with the guidance of a great professor.

We can see that the two principal differences arises without any effort on part of the college or university at all and solely because of the peer group. And that's an important factor in academia as much as it is in the real world.


text:
Including critical feedback about a course on exam paper
There was a course in our university regarding web design for which we were given a group assignment to build a website using HTML, CSS and PHP (we were allowed to use additional technologies as well if we wanted).
However, most of us felt that we were not given enough practical guidance, because this was the first group project we were given with technical aspects at the university level. Though the lecturers tried their best, the workload was too heavy and even they failed to teach anything beyond the examples given in the textbooks.  There were sessions to discuss the issues with the teaching staff, but the time windows allotted were not enough as there were too many groups.  Under these circumstances, most of the groups were frustrated and it even affected the assignments in other subjects as well.
Eventually, the websites we built were evaluated in a VIVA and our website was unfinished at the deadline. (The marks given were never disclosed to the students).
When we were given a written paper for the final exam, after answering the questions as well as I could I wrote a note to the examiner at the end of my answer sheet criticizing the subject content being too heavy and the lack of attention towards the groups' progress.  I got a good grade for that particular course in the end, but have never received personal feedback regarding the note I wrote.
Looking back at the incident, I feel like I should have tried harder for the assignment but I am still unclear whether that piece of criticism was suitable or not, though I believe someone should have raised the issue somehow.
The issue is that we keep getting courses with similarly heavy workloads and poor content organization as we progress toward our degrees, but there is no proper objection from the students.
My questions are:

Was my action appropriate?
How should I tackle such situations if they arise in future?

Does your university have some sort of "course-evaluations" by students (a questionnaire about what you (didn't) like about a course you have taken, usually given after the course ends)?

Note in your exam is a bad idea.  You need to totally separate the issue of the course itself from your performance in it so it does not seem like you are complaining about the course because of grade.  If you want to leave feedback, write a separate letter.

A note in your exam will most likely be disregarded.  There are a number of channels for feedback, this will vary according to university.  Feedback forms at the end of the course is the most common but you can reach out to your faculty administration and they should be able to provide you a form.
You can also try to approach your professor directly: be courteous and to the point.  Remember that they're probably overloaded and they're doing the best they can in the circumstances.
Having said all this.  I have to say that most university courses are meant to be introductory courses.  That is the purpose is to give you an overview of the basic theory and the possibilities in a given subject. No course will ever be complete, even if you take advanced courses.
In practical courses such as the one you mention your best bet is practical experience: by yourself, through an internship, etc.  This is something you can do (by yourself) now that you have been given the overview at the course.

You are entitled to feedback. Keeping the marks secret is never a good idea - even if fairly given, it creates the impression that the university has something to hide.
If there is no formal feedback mechanism for course quality, you could have a group of student delegates (don't go it alone and make sure you have the support of the student body, or you alone will absorb all possible bad will of the department) and ask for more detailed feedback on performance; of course, always be polite, to maximise success chances.
Also, you could ask - already early in the future courses, where they still can fix it - to fix a situation that has arisen.
That said, I am usually in favour of technically demanding courses, and having the students stretch, but the students have to be put in a position where they can take the material taught and run with it. Whether it comes from books or questions answered by a teacher is secondary. I cannot say whether the course was ill organised or simply demanding and I found that tough, but well-organised courses pay off later at some point.

I was a teaching assistant of a web technologies class for many years. We also run group exercises and then had a final written exam. The exercise helped the final grade, but they were not essential to pass the exam neither they influenced the grade too much.
Often it is hard to realise the actual workload of an exercise. There are many factors to consider and still this can vary from group to group. As TAs, we realise the amount of work a student has to put in, however, if the exercise is too easy or too small, nobody will learn anything, or the project will be done by one single team member while the others rest. So it is a trade off which is not that easy to consider all the time.
That being said, we always welcome feedback from students, especially if it is a specific criticism. If you come and tell the TAs "look, this part of the exercise is not very supported by anything and we needed most of our workload just to find a possible solution" or "look this specific part of the exercise is only tedious and time consuming but we did not learn anything" is better than saying "the workload was too heavy". With this last bit of information the TA can only do so much to understand. Plus, the exam is the very worst place where to put this information. I have seen students writing comments on the exam papers, and I did not like it because you are too biased in that precise moment. I do not know if you wrote it because you were frustrated or not. Plus, exams are not letters. We have emails, you can come to my office and discuss this in person, using the exam sheet is a very lazy way to deal with the problem. I usually just ignored these comments.
If you care enough, why don't you write an email to the Professor and the TAs by asking for a meeting to discuss the exam. Alternatively, you could directly express your feedback on the email itself. Just try to be polite and I am sure they will understand your point of view.


text:
Ph.D. studies in Management field after Masters of science in Mechatronics from German university
I am a student of masters mechatronics and during my course, I attended many elective management classes. I am even allowed to write my thesis in strategic management and I'm interested to continue my career somewhere in teaching in this field. Am I allowed to pursue Ph.D. studies in Strategic Management after completing my bachelor in Mechanical Engineering and Masters in Mechatronics from German university?

Yes, you are. In Germany, it doesn't really matter what exactly your masters degree was, as long as it's close enough to give you a good background for your PhD studies. Basically, your masters degree should enable you to self study whatever you need to work on your PhD thesis with very little help from your professor. If it does that, then it is close enough.
Now the difficulty is finding a professor who will take you on as a PhD student. With your masters thesis already in the field of your choice, this should be doable despite the different degree subject.

Thank you so much! I even thought of asking my Thesis supervisor for the Ph.D. opportunity if its possible.

Do that! Your supervisor might have a job for you or they might know someone who does. Good luck!


text:
How to focus only on the problem at hand?
I am a PhD student designing algorithms for mathematical problems. I have the very bad habit of loosing my track on research problems. Suppose I am working on problem X, then, in the next week, I will start looking at Y,Z and other problems. Due to this, I feel tired at the end of the day with very less productivity with respect to X. I have always fear in my mind of failing, and that's why I try to look at other problems simultaneously. I don't know if it is okay for a PhD student (after mid-stage) to do this kind of things.
Question: How to focus only on the problem at hand?

You are "guilty" of a particular type of procrastination (in turn a type of  avoidance behavior), in which you avoid working on your (self-assigned) task by working on some other task. Ergo, the usual strategies to counter procrastination apply. There are several examples on this site and elsewhere online; my preferred method is to combine the pomodoro technique with a progess tracker.

Pomodoro technique : Work on your task during limited and manageable time periods by setting a timer, e.g. 25 minutes, then force yourself to take a break of at least five minutes even if it completely disrupts your flow. This limits fear and thus avoidance, and it creates motivation to get back to work after the break. Don't allow yourself to work on your side-gigs until four (or so) pomodori are completed, but then go ahead and indulge.
Progess tracker: Use a 'done' list, an online habit tracker, a spreadsheet or whatever works to track each completed pomodoro. This creates motivation, by seeing your success, in particular if you accomplish not  to break a streak, and facilitates habituation.

If your problem to focus disappears, you may want to be more liberal with the breaks between pomodori, so they don't disturb your flow, use a single pomodoro just to get you started, or do away with them all together.
As a side remark, it's good to work on several projects, but you should prioritize and stick to priorities.

For progress trackers, I've been quite happy with Nirvana. It has a focus view, which only shows the next task or couple of tasks. This avoids the main problem I've had with to-do lists - they quickly end up too long, making it hard to focus on the important tasks.

@Anyon I think progress trackers shouldn't ever double as task manager to avoid the problem you mention. They should be strictly "done" lists, not "to do" lists.

Actually, it is probably a mistake to focus too closely on only one thing. Perhaps, though is that you just wander a bit more than you should. But focusing on one thing doesn't work for most human activities or you get "blind sided" by other things. One needs "peripheral vision" in research as well as in driving a car. Other ideas relate to the main thread of your research and you need to be aware of these if you are to avoid a "too narrow" perspective and didactic work.
But, it is possible to defer work on those other ideas that occur to you as you go. My personal method, nowadays, is to keep a pack of index cards on my desk and when other ideas come to me that are not related to the task at hand, I write a quick note on the card and return to work. I keep these cards together and can return to them whenever I want a "working break". I can add a few thoughts to a card.
As a grad student, I wrote up "interesting ideas that might be pursued" on individual pages and kept these in a notebook. When I finished my degree I had a pile of potential work to be explored.
Note that the mind doesn't work especially efficiently if you try to focus it too closely for too long. You can get stuck in what seems to be (and may actually be) a dead end. It is good to give your mind a break. Sleep is useful for this, but so is changing gears. The trick is to organize your work in such a way that you let this happen without wandering down side alleys for too long.
Having the "interesting ideas" captured so that they can be returned to later may be enough to let you avoid following those threads too far at this instant so that you can return to the main thread.