Datasets:

qingy2024

/

reddit-69k

like 0

PhD in retrospect What is something you would have wanted to have known before deciding to do a PhD? Or what is something you would have liked to have known/learned earlier? What's the best/worst part?

Work with as many professors as possible. Your main advisor is important, sure, but if you get the chance to learn from and work with other people, take advantage of it. Seek out opportunities; don’t just wait for them to come to you.

Didn't get an authors approval of a manuscript - how big a deal is this? I am in the process of submitting a revision for work I did while in undergrad. The whole time I was writing the paper I was mainly corresponding with my PI. I did send an early draft to the rest of the authors (who were involved with creating the dataset I used, but that don't know who I am), one of whom gave feedback and the rest didn't. From that point on, I just assumed that my PI knew I was only sending drafts to her. When I originally submitted the manuscript a confirmation email went out to all the authors, so they all know about the submission, but I never emailed the final draft for approval before submitting. Now, just before submitting the revision, my PI goes "just to confirm, so and so saw and signed off on the original submission, correct?" I don't know if I'm catastrophizing, but I feel like I really screwed up. Is this a big academia faux pas?? I have no idea why she's only asking about the one author. It doesn't help that I'm not even apart of the lab anymore so the communication is not the best. Any advice is welcome.

She probably only mentioned that one author because they said something to her about it, or asked a question about it. It's a pretty big faux pas (in my field at least), but also it was her job to guide you through the process, including the step where you get the final sign-off from all authors. It's understandable that she forgot to tell you that detail, and it's also understandable that you didn't think to do it (especially if you've never been on anyone else's papers and seen them do that). You should tell her clearly what you did (and didn't) do, so she can do a good job answering questions from the other authors. She might be frustrated or a little angry at the error, but if she's a good mentor, she will not take that out on you. Similar things happened with me and my PhD supervisor, and the sequence of events usually went like this: 1. I explain what happened, he tells me I messed up, he acknowledges that he too messed up. In this conversation, he is pretty clearly frustrated and holding it in, but he doesn't yell at me or say anything mean or say anything like "you should have known." I am not thick-skinned, so I would feel a bit scared during this (and I'm sure he could tell), and I would feel like crying but I wouldn't. 2. We continue our regular meeting schedule (no avoidance). In our next meeting, he would apologize for being frustrated and reiterate that it was his fault for not clearly explaining to me what I should do. Sometimes he'll give some constructive criticism like, "next time, if you notice this thing, just write to me right away..." 3. In all subsequent meetings, he totally frames the error as 100% his fault. It's clear that he's written the incident in his memory that way. In my opinion, this was a pretty good way to handle it, and if a supervisor expresses any more anger than I described above in item 1, then I would have a low opinion of their mentoring ability (that would be kind of toxic).

I had a "campus" interview for a TT position where the chair of the department (not the search) asked me to send a startup budget before they interviewed everyone/made me a formal offer. Should I be working on finishing this for her before an offer is made? Specifically, both full day interviews I had people spoke as if I would get the job after my seminar. When speaking to others on the job market, people have told me this is typical and doesn't always result in an offer. I don't know if this is typical, but wondering if others would actually go through the effort of laying out the startup budget for a job they don't have yet just for the hope it makes me more attractive for the position.

My department has asked this before in interviews. It’s mostly so we can start negotiating upwards for an appropriate amount of money. Also, note that you should be asking for something reasonable for the department and university size. If you propose significantly higher than they are imagining, they could conclude you don’t understand how building a research program will work there. Significantly less, and they may conclude you aren’t “high powered” enough. So make sure you’re targeting an appropriate range for the university and department size.

2 years since I received my B.S. in Physics. Applied twice for Physics PhD Programs. Rejected twice. Currently working as a High School Physics Teacher. I want to go back to grad school, but I don't know how anymore. My current plan is to build up Summer Research Experience. Looking for advice. TIA. Hi everyone, I am in my mid-20s from the US. I am 2 years out of undergrad with a B.S. And here's my story. Got a full merit scholarship to a public university in a major city. Finished with a GPA of 3.4 and a B.S. in Physics. During undergrad I participated in a research lab doing work on photonics with TMDs and creating hybrid bi-layers using a stacking method. The next two semesters after I graduated I participated in a Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship (SULI) program at a National Laboratory working in Nuclear Data Science for the first and Theoretical Quantum Mechanics for the second. During these past two years I applied to many PhD programs. The first round of applications I was arrogant. I thought I could apply to a bunch of super duper advanced schools (IVYs and such) and definitely get into at least one. I learned it doesn't work that way. Second round I applied to schools at or lower in ranking than my undergrad. Thought a lower ranked school would be more willing to take a chance on me. Wrong again. Before I received my last decision for the second round of applications I made a deal with myself: "If I get rejected again, I'll take a break and try something else". I got rejected again and tried something else. I am currently a physics teacher at a private high school in New England. And after a few months of working with uninterested and lazy students, I am so bored and disheartened. I didn't think every student would love math and physics, but the administration just pushes these kids through and I am pressured to walk the line. I need to try. I need to go back to grad school and see how far I can go. My current plan is to work here for a few more years and save as much money as I can; my family and myself aren't wealthy enough for me to just not have an income while I apply to grad schools. I also plan to accumulate as many accolades, research reexperiences, and letters of rec as I can before I apply again. That is what brings me here. As a teacher I have summers COMPLETELY OFF. I am currently searching for Summer Post-Baccalaureate Internships and Research Programs preferably in Experimental Particle Physics (I prefer theoretical, but I know it's harder to get into) OR PhD Bridge Programs with a stipend during the regular Fall and Spring semesters. Thankfully other than money, I have no obligations or restrictions on where I can work, live, or travel to. I am open to living and working anywhere as long as it gets me closer to my goals. Thank you to anyone who takes the time to respond and good luck to everyone else on their grad school journeys! **TL;DR - I want to go to grad school for a PhD in Physics. 2 years since my undergrad. A few random research experiences. Currently a high school physics teacher. ISO Summer Physics Research Programs.**

Two thoughts: You might want to pay someone to look at your application materials, but it sounds like something is very wrong with them. Sure, Ivy League schools are competitive, but if you are applying to graduate schools of lower ranking and not getting any offers, then something must be wrong with your applications. If you want to improve your chances of getting into a top-ranked school and can afford it, you might consider an MS program as a stepping stone.

What is the worst way in which you screwed up in an interview? As the title says. Curious to hear about the different interview experiences encountered. How as a candidate, have you screwed up in an interview? Or as an interviewer, what are the worst things you've encountered during an interview?

I had been unemployed for 6 months when I had an interview with my former PI. He asked if I had experience with a particular procedure, and I said no but that I was eager to learn new things. He then asked me why I applied for a job I wasn't qualified for. I pointed out that my skills and experience were in black and white on the resume in front of him, so why would he interview someone without the experience he was looking for? Things went downhill from there. We exchanged some snark, and eventually, I burst into tears of frustration. I'd been on dozens of interviews over the past several months, and it seemed like I was a quota filler. I snapped, "If you have no intention of hiring me, just tell me right now so I can go home and go back to bed." He ended up hiring me 🤷 I was his research assistant until he retired.

I'm supposed to finish my PhD this year in Molecular Neuroscience, but I want to leave academia after. What jobs can I look for? I have decided to finish my PhD but leave academia after that.The field has become too stressful and it's taken a heavy toll on my mental and physical health. I have decided to seek jobs outside of academic research now but I never thought about this before and I don't know where to start. Most of my skills lie in molecular biology lab experience. I know how to do minipreps or transcription or PCR mutations and I became experienced in two electrode voltage clamp in the past 3 years. However I don't have any computer programming knowledge, I'm taking an online course in Python programming, but it's difficult to keep up with my work schedule and mental health state. But I want to seek out realistic options of what jobs I could look and apply for. I would appreciate a nudge in any direction. Thanks a lot!!

There are loads of options out there for you, and it depends what you want to do. There are lots of organisations that like PhDs, even if they're not necessary for the job. Organisations: * Government Funders * Research/medical charities * Foundations * Civil service * Universities (administration) * Consultancies * Think tanks * Pharma * Start-ups * Biotech * Journals Jobs: * Tech transfer * Policy * Public engagement * Government affairs * Science comms * Portfolio management for funders * Strategy * Grants management * Editor * Administration * Consultant * Scientist * Project manager * Research management * Programme management * Impact and evaluation * Compliance Good luck!

should i finish my masters or skip to phd? hello! I´m very conflicted and I thought I´d seek out some advice. I just finished my first year of my masters and I have the option to either finish my masters and apply for phds for the coming fall OR I can apply to fast-track to a PhD. If I fast-track, I won't get a master's degree, but I can use all the research I've done so far in my master's towards my PhD instead. I would need to do 3 more courses, but I'd likely shave about a year off of my total time. I love working with my supervisor, he's been amazing to work with so far! The one big reason I can think of to not fast track is to go somewhere else for my PhD. My school is at least top 50 in my field, but my supervisor thinks I could potentially do better. If I want to fast-track, I need to make that decision as soon as possible, definitely by the end of the term, which is sooner than I'd hear back from any other schools. Is it worth it to fast track to PhD and lose out on potential offers from elsewhere, or should I go through the application process for PhDs and add a year to my timeline for a chance at a higher-scored school?

My advice would be to not fast-track. In addition to the reasons you have suggested, the more time you have to prepare for your Ph.D. program, the better. Use the extra year of your master's to work on your research, writing, and networking skills. Take some time to develop your teaching or pick up some service learning. Also, more broadly, and not to sound patronizing, but just giving yourself time to live and grow at that age is important. As the other user in the thread said, the year doesn't really matter in the long run in this industry—what does matter is that you are developing yourself professionally, growing, and taking advantage of the resources and opportunities you have.

Is it worth trying to become a professor? I’m a PhD student in a clinical psychology program, and I’m primarily in a clinical psychology program because I wanted to be sure I had prospects outside of academia. My true passion is neuroscience, and I want desperately to be a neuroscience/neuropsychology researcher/professor in the future. I really just want some validation that becoming a professor nowadays is even a remote possibility, as that’s what I really want out of all of this.

I'm the chair of a psych department. We can't fill our clinical psych faculty positions. We have failed multiple searches over two years. This is not because we can't find the "right" person; it is because there are no qualified applicants. Our job applications have cratered. From discussions with others, we are not alone. We cannot compete with the pay or hours of clinical positions (as in 35-45% less pay). Plus, we are in a state hostile to women in a profession dominated by women. Basically, fresh clinical grads have options, and they are not choosing faculty positions (and unlike fields like business, nursing, and engineering, university admins are not budging on salaries). Even a few years ago, when applications were stronger, the clinical positions always had less competition. Social and developmental psych would have 100+ qualified applicants, neuroscience and cognitive maybe 50+, and clinical and school maybe 25+. The "experimental" side of the house has only seen a slight decline in the last couple of years, while the "clinical" side fell off a cliff. Look at the psych job wiki. There are almost 250 open clinical/counseling faculty positions this year (plus there are open positions you would qualify for also). Most of the conversations you see about it being impossible to get faculty positions really depend on the field. It is completely possible to get a faculty position in clinical psych. Focus on publications (which will also help get a good internship), and you should have a shot. If your goal is to be a neuropsych prof, you should look to the training requirements to be ABPP in neuro. However, this may limit your job prospects vs. being a generalist since many programs don't have a neuropsych person unless they focus on training in that area. (Also make sure you understand the biases against people that don't come from the right kind of program.) There is nothing to stop you from doing neuro-related research as a general clinical person. I'm in neuroscience, and I have collaborated with someone in health psych and another in serious mental illness. Don't sleep on health psych. The Venn diagram overlaps with neuropsych, but you may have more job opportunities (granted I don't have hard data on this).

Conflicted about a case of plagiarism that I spotted TL;DR: I think I was plagiarised. But not sure if I should make a big deal of it. I recently agreed to review a paper whose topic resembled a paper I published during my PhD. At first glance of the title and abstract, the work didn't seem original enough. They basically replicated on Y what I did in my paper on X. But the superficial lack of originality is not ground for quick dismissal in my book. And I was certainly in a position to have a closer look and review it, since it fit within my area of expertise a lot more than the average review request I receive. I started reading it today, and right way found out a couple of things that might be relevant to the story later: * My paper is cited, which is reasonable considering its relevance, and it's cited where appropriate. * It's not a double blind journal, and I noticed one of the middle authors (possibly with a senior role) is an old academic acquaintance. As I continued reading, I was surprised to spot a sentence that resembled one of my own. I open the pdf of my paper, and there it was - almost the exact. I'm going to use a substituted example to demonstrate the degree of plagiarism I'm talking about - because I know these things can be vague and difficult to judge. Take the following 2 papers: 1. "The economic impact of AIDS on Thailand" (Viravaidya et al., 1996) 2. "Impact of HIV/AIDS on the national economy of India" (Anand et al., 1999) Paper (2) cites paper (1), which is reasonable. But now consider this real sentence from paper (1): "It is too early to know what the leading cause of death of infected people in Thailand will be, but the pattern will have important consequences for health care services and costs". Now imagine paper (2) had this sentence - which I just made up: "It is premature to know what the primary cause of mortality in infected people in Thailand will be, but the pattern will have impactful effects on health care services and costs". Note the use of synonyms of terms from the original sentence. And note also that it's still Thailand, and not India.. and this is on purpose. Because that's pretty much what the manuscript I'm reviewing did; mutatis mutandis. They copied my sentence, thesaurus'ed the terms, and forgot to replace X with Y! Just to be clear, the sentence in question was unique and long enough, that had they remembered to switch X for Y, I would have still noticed, and would still have had enough grounds to claim plagiarism. But their mishap made it all the more obvious and silly. Now here are my options and why I'm conflicted - I could: 1. Reject the paper with generic comments to authors and editor (not novel enough, etc). 2. Reject with no comments to authors, but with a letter to the editor telling them about the plagiarism. 3. Refuse to review - claim conflict of interest that I hadn't noticed when I first accepted to review. Something I wish I could consider doing, but obviously won't, due to the ethics and anonymity of peer-review: 4. Contact my acquaintance who is co-author, and alert them about what I assume the first author did. They'd probably set things straight somehow. I am not bothered that much about being plagiarised. It's just a sentence after all, and I don't want to seem petty. Also, the first author is probably a junior scientist. At one hand, I think they should learn that this is unacceptable. On the other hand, I don't want to be haste to go with option (2), because I don't know what the consequences of that might be (I wouldn't want to be the reason they're blacklisted or ruin their reputation for example). They may have simply not learned properly that this is not how one writes a paper. It might be a remnant of undergraduate writing habits. It's wrong in undergrad as well, but I guess it happens a lot more often and goes unnoticed/unpunished.

Here is my concern. You currently know that they plagiarized one of your sentences. Maybe not the biggest deal. That doesn't mean it is the only thing they plagiarized across the whole paper, though. There could be other instances from other sources that you don't recognize since they're not yours. Finding one instance of plagiarism is enough for me to take a much more suspicious view of the whole document.

PhDs on the job market, how many of you are in relationships and how is that affecting your choices for where to apply (if at all)? It's an interesting comparison for me between last year and this year. Last year at this time, I was in a committed, long-term relationship that I expected would last (I had intentions of asking her to marry me). Because she was still in school, I was trying to remain flexible in where I applied, and the end result was that I probably didn't apply to as many posted positions as I could / should have. This year... well, the relationship ended, and ironically, I think it's been good for me in terms of career aspirations and preparation. In the last year I've submitted (and published) more manuscripts, my CV is looking considerably more competitive for the kinds of positions I'm looking for, and because I'm no longer worrying about someone else w/respect to location, I'm applying to any position that fits my research interests. I don't think I'd be doing any of that if I was in a relationship right now, and even though I miss the companionship, maybe this is the best thing at the moment. How many of you are having to deal with some aspect of this right now (or have in the past)? Any advice, for now or the future?

I applied for pretty much every relevant job opening in my field when I finished my Ph.D., despite the fact that I was engaged and my fiancée definitely did not want to move, for example, to the middle of Wisconsin. I figured it would be best to get an offer and then deal with discussions of where to move, rather than apply only where we would both love to live and risk getting no offers at all.

At what point did you decide to leave academia? What was the breaking point for you? I've been on the job market for 4 years since getting my PhD (humanities/social sciences). As the years go on, I'm realizing there might not be a (secure salaried) job for me in the field. When did you decide to call it quits?

I decided to leave academia in January, which was a few weeks after I defended my dissertation and midway through my first cycle on the market. A few different things converged, but overall, I got tired of the way the market seemed to dictate my future. I felt like instead of actively creating (much less living) the life that I wanted, I was just waiting around, hoping that the gods of the academic job market would "let me" have it, e.g., "let me" move to the specific part of the country I wanted to live in, "let me" find secure, well-paying work in a reasonable timeframe, etc. I guess I just had this moment where I was like, why am I doing this? If I know where I want to live, then why aren't I just focusing on trying to move there? If I know I *don't* want to live in XYZ place or teach at XYZ kind of school, then why am I applying for jobs there? And eventually, I came to the conclusion that an academic career, as it exists now, was an obstacle to the rest of my life instead of enriching it.

How to decide whether to try to stay in academia or go to industry? Hi all, I'm currently a physics post-doc in a programming heavy field. By the end of next summer, I will have to move and either work fully remote for my current job (unclear if possible), switch post-docs/get a TT offer, or switch to industry. This + general concern over the long term viability of academia has me questioning what I should do. I love my research and find it fulfilling / interesting, and I find that universities are often a stimulating environment to work in. That said, for all I know the same could be true of industry jobs as well. I wouldn't mind getting paid more and having more certain career prospects than "publish a lot for another few years, then maybe get a TT offer, then maybe get tenure". I'm probably in an ok position for TT at *some* point as long as I can get a few more solid publications out, but it still feels like a huge **IF** that is years down the line with extra uncertainties attached to it. I'm also worried about the stress of trying to start a family while trying to get tenure; I feel like I've only heard stories of my professors getting up/going to sleep at 5am/midnight just to get work done with the kids asleep. I'm curious how others, especially post-docs that initially wanted to stay in academia, decided to continue with their career and what swayed you. At the moment, I just feel kind of lost with it all.

The truth no one inside is willing to tell you: get out of academia and live your life! There are fulfilling careers elsewhere. There are intelligent people who like to learn and work hard everywhere. You will find them. You can get paid more (it might not sound important, I know it didn’t to me when I was younger, but it is vital for achieving simple life goals you may have), stress a lot less, live wherever you want, and the list goes on. My life got better when I gave up adjuncting and my goal to eventually teach full time. My friends who stayed are not living the dream like I suspected they would be; they are underpaid and admit they are unhappy ten years later. I wish I had left sooner. People my age are much further along on the career path I’m now on. But I try not to dwell on that! I’m happy now, and I bring special skills with me from my days in academia that others in my position don’t have. This is just one opinion, I’m sure there are many! But I think it’s an important one to hear, and I know when I decided to leave, no one on the inside was supportive of that decision, and I would’ve liked to hear this.

Are there any people on here who had to leave academia because of a chronic illness that affects their memory/energy? Towards the end of grad school, the stress of writing my dissertation caused me to develop a very debilitating chronic illness. Since then, I have struggled to find employment. I can use my mind for anything difficult for maybe 2-4 hours a day. It has been almost three years and I have yet to find a treatment that makes my illness manageable for full time work. I'm struggling very much financially and need something better than the crappy hourly work I have now. I've been trying to get a post doc because it would give me a flexible schedule to focus on my health (I'm an anthropologist and am able to have a flexible schedule). The problem is, I'm just not well enough to work on publications so I'm not an attractive candidate for any decent paying fellowships. I've thought about consulting, but my big concern is not having decent health insurance. I'm worried that any increase in income from consulting would be wiped out by medical bills. Has anybody been in my shoes and figured out a solution to getting part time work (or full time work that can be done part time by someone highly qualified) that offers insurance and good pay. I cannot work on my feet for long periods of time. Any recommendations would be welcome.

I don't have practical advice because my condition was resolvable, but I wanted to let you know you're not alone in this. I thought I had garden-variety burnout when I finished my PhD—and I did—but it turned out it was also Graves' disease, a pretty serious if untreated thyroid condition that wasn't diagnosed until five years later. It screwed up my mental health, my energy, and my focus, and possibly had been doing so for most of my life. What worked for me, both while I was being crushed under it and while I was getting diagnosed and treated, was taking a government administration job. Fixed pay scales, flexible hours, a good union, excellent sick pay, and although most of the work was very boring, it was usually not very difficult or stressful. I'm not from the US, but some of these things are transferable to most city/state/federal civil/public service positions. They're stable, they're boring, and they attract people who need stability more than challenge or opportunity. I wasn't very happy in it, and I'm planning to leave, but it's what kept me financially solvent, independent, and with a respectable resume for five years. Maybe look into open recruitment for those positions where you are? In many cases, just having a degree is enough to be considered.

What do you think the "outcome" of trying to prevent cheating via AI will look like? I was just glancing at this post and it's gotten me thinking about what happens when AI is well-developed enough to be virtually "uncatchable." Right now AI can make up legit-looking but not real sources so they're easy to check by just looking up the citations. Additionally, IME many AI-generated pieces are fairly stilted in their language use. But some day that won't be the case. In fact, some day it may be possible that AI can essentially create an otherwise legitimate, well-done paper (as in, pull real sources together and create a novel document from them) with little student input. How do you think higher ed will adapt? (I'm thinking mostly about teaching/testing students, but if you want to talk about research and scientific writing, feel free!) I feel like if we can somehow get away from this "college is to get a job" so that many/most students don't actually care about the learning but are just there to check a box we might be able to just generally reduce the impetus to cheat in general, but that will require some significant societal change. I was thinking that in many fields that might ask you to write a paper (as opposed to sit an exam during class time where you couldn't access an AI bot) we may benefit from giving up the "arms race" and returning to a model of oral examinations. Each student meets with the instructor (small classes) or 1-2 TAs in a team of several (larger classes) and basically take an oral examination. Examinations can be recorded for review if there are complains/questions afterward. But then I thought about how many students these days have anxiety-related or similar concerns if not full out accommodations and how much that would probably increase if students knew they'd regularly have to do oral examinations. Additionally, it may be hard to have every student receive fair, equal-difficulty tests without giving them the same questions to answer, yet if you give them all the same questions it would be difficult to prevent early test takers from telling others what they will be asked. So I am curious, what do y'all see as the way forward in a world of AI bots doing homework?

Even before ChatGPT, many students were using human experts to do their work for them, including exams. ChatGPT just makes it cheaper and faster. I think oral exams are the only way to ensure that the person standing in front of you is the person doing the work, but I also think they are completely impractical from a professor's workload perspective. I can give a 2-hour exam to a class of 50 and grade it in 10 hours of my time. To do that as an oral exam would take weeks. So, I would be forced to ask students fewer questions; if they get unlucky and blow just one concept, they could fail. Oral exams are also incredibly stressful and unfair to students with social anxiety, and physical appearance, accent, etc., will inevitably lead to unconscious bias in grading. We like to pretend we’re immune to this stuff, but we’re not. Oral exams are the only way forward, but they are also impossible. Where does that leave us? Damned if I know.

Examples of email signatures relaying you do not expect others to reply to your email send after hours For better or worse, it is easier for me to send emails on weekends and evenings to collaborators and students than during business hours. I do a lot of my writing during evenings/weekends - this is just going to be the reality until I become more efficient or get more grant funding If I wait until Monday AM, I spend half the day sending emails from the work I've done over the weekend I do not want others to think I expect a response immediately, especially students Any examples of email signatures about not expecting an immediate response? Most I find online are related to "I work flexible work hours, I do not expect an immediate response." I may be splitting hairs but I don't work flexible hours - I'm just always working

My colleague, who is a night owl, uses a sig that says something like, "My work hours may not look like yours, so please respond at a time that is convenient for you."

Have I made a big mistake by not applying to a PhD at 26 (it keeps me up at night)? **Abstract**: *I am 26, finishing a master's degree, and I have no plans now and have never considered a phd. My professors and colleagues say i'm ideal, my parents are against it, all deadlines have passed, and I have an existential crisis now.* I am about to finish my 2 year master's in International Relations at the age of 26 (in my country we graduate at 19 and I did a year of travel). It was such a big deal to me to even get into this program, because I originally have a B.Sc. in psychology and I'm the first one in my direct family line to even see a college from the inside anyhow. The hybris I accused myself of to even attempt a master's! I was so nervous whether I'd even survive the IR program that I spent exactly no time thinking about any further degrees afterwards. Now that the end approaches, professors and my friends at grad school keep asking me why I don't do a PhD. One senior professor even approached me in a pub and said I was an ideal candidate, as I love academic discussions and research. My GPA is good and my supervisor really liked my master's thesis. But I was so focused to even survive the past two years, driven by constant impostor syndrome, that I never spent a second thinking I'd do anything else but "a job" afterwards, however vaguely defined. I made no plans for later at all. My professors' and colleagues' comments have seriously thrown me in doubt whether I didn't do a huge mistake. My parents (both worked themselves up from poor backgrounds, without a college degree) painted an image of PhD studies as a dead-end into poverty and unemployability with short-term contracts only, so I never really considered it. Obviously all deadlines have passed now by a long shot, and as all my friends move on to jobs (mostly non-related office jobs). I wonder if I didn't make a huge mistake by not applying, and whether that window of opportunity isn't closed now for good... or whether I made the right call.

I started a PhD at 31. If age is an obstacle, it's not. You can definitely take one or more years to get some work experience and have a glimpse at different career paths as well.

I got into a really nasty argument with my professor, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Advice? (Warning: Long; TLDR included) I'll do my best to keep this brief. I feel like this situation needs a lot of background to understand, however, I will include a TLDR at the bottom. I'm a junior studying Philosophy, and I just switched to the program. I loved everything about this semester, except that I have had a professor that I absolutely could not stand. On the surface, he is a nice, personable person; he's easy to talk to, and he is obviously passionate about the subjects he knows about because he could literally go on for hours if you let him. However, when I got to his class, a 1000 level Elementary Logic class, his personality seemed to change completely. For my program, Elementary Logic is a needed class, but not necessarily a prerequisite for any other classes. There were other majors in our class, in fact, I believe I was the only Philosophy student. From day one he berated the students multiple times for not reading the book, despite his teaching strategy being pulling up the book and reading the passages to the class. (Of course students aren't going to read the book if you're just going to read it to them anyway...) I got the impression that he didn't really know the material either, despite claiming he'd taught this class for fifteen years. I'm fairly studious, I did read the book and understood the material fairly quickly. To be honest, I found it easier to teach myself the material versus paying attention in class because this professor had a tendency to drift off topic for most of the class. I chose to sit back and let others lead discussions because I felt like I didn't need it as much as the other students. He, however, took this as me not caring and would get on to me several times for not "paying attention," even though it was clear through my grades and participation that I clearly understood the material. He had a tendency to use the word "fucking" a lot. I'm not sure if he was trying to be funny, but it just seemed rude and unprofessional. My final straw was when the students were struggling to understand a concept that we had just learned, he shouted to the class "come on, this isn't fucking rocket science, you should all know this!!" I just got up and left at that point. I couldn't take it anymore. I had told myself that I could learn the material on my own because that was essentially what I had been doing up to this point. However, I had some personal problems in the middle of the semester that really affected my attendance and performance in my classes as a whole, and this class just sort of came last in my list of priorities. In hindsight, I should have just withdrawn from the class, but I wasn't really thinking at this point and I continued to live in the fantasy that I could do it. I would run into this professor a couple times over the course of the semester. He would always ignore me until I spoke up and said hello, and he would get on to me for not being in his class, which is a fair reaction. I got the sense that he was personally hurt by my choice to not show up, which again, is fair, but I'm sure I'm not the only student in the world who's just never shown up to class. Come to the end of the semester, I've sort of accepted the fact that I was going to fail, but I was aware that the class was offered in the summer online and I figured I would take the class again to get rid of the failing grade. I sent an email to this professor to apologize for my poor performance, told him I understood the consequences of my actions, admitted to being a little cocky when it came to learning the material, and thanked him for his attempts to get me to get me to pass, and informed him of my plans to retake the course at a later date. I never heard back. On the last day of classes, a friend needed to stop by his office, so I took that opportunity to apologize in person. He, of course, goes through berating me again. I allowed him to because again, I should be held accountable for my actions. I told him that I understood that I deserved a failing grade and I would just retake the class at a later date. He accused me of "self-flagellation" and that I was trying to play the pity card, which was not my intention. He then shut the door and pulled out my grades and said that he was willing to fudge the numbers to get me to pass with a D. I told him that I didn't feel comfortable accepting that offer because I didn't show up to 75% of the classes. I truly believed that I deserved a failing grade, and I was okay with that. He kept throwing numbers at me, saying that if he did this, tweaked that, dropped two grades he could get me to pass, and I just kept reiterating that I appreciate his efforts but I wasn't willing to accept it. He wouldn't let me leave, either. I tried to excuse myself and he snapped "I'm not done talking to you yet!" I got frustrated and snapped back "At this point I feel like you're doing this more for you than for me" to which he admitted that maybe he was. I figured that was the end of the discussion, but he still wouldn't let me leave, going as far as to block my way to get out of his office. This is when it got personal. He said that if I couldn't handle this class, I might as well not be able to handle college and that I might as well drop out (despite the fact that my grades in my other five classes were all As.) He called me a bad student, stupid for what I was doing, etc etc etc. I stopped arguing at this point and just let him talk, and finally found my way out of his office. I'm not sure what to do. I've talked to other students about this professor and they all say that he's great, so nice, that he always helped them when they weren't doing well in his class, probably by tweaking grades. I'm maybe a bit too serious about education, especially a basic 1000 level class, but it's against my moral code to accept something I feel don't deserve. There's nothing wrong with helping your students along when they struggle, but I felt like he did it a little too much. I seem to be the only student who had a problem with him, however. I am not going to ask my other professors about it because I don't want to put them in that position. Again, as a person, he's nice dude. It was just in a professional environment that I felt uncomfortable around him. I forgot to mention that this professor happens to be my advisor, the only advisor for the philosophy department. After this altercation, I'm really uncomfortable having to see him again, let alone be at his mercy when it comes to handling my academic career. Maybe I'm being a little dramatic, but I just have a bad feeling about all of this. I was just going to let his behavior slide for the most part, but after that argument, I feel like I need to inform someone. I've thought about going to the dean to talk about it, but I'm not sure that my feelings of being uncomfortable are grounds for possibly costing this guy his job. I'm not looking to erase the F from my transcript, I again am willing to accept it, I just feel like someone should be aware that this happened. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you. TLDR: My professor, who also happens to be my only advisor, took it personally that I didn't come to his class anymore. I refused to go because I found his behavior rude and immature. When I tried to make amends he berated me, called me a bad student, and said that I was better off dropping out despite him knowing that I was excelling in all my other classes. I feel as if I should inform someone of his behavior but I'm not sure if this is the best course of action.

I'm absolutely horrified by his incredibly unprofessional and inappropriate behavior. Please go to your department chair and discuss this with them, including all the details you shared here about him blocking the door and telling you that maybe you can't handle college and should drop out. Also, make sure you let the chair know that you don't feel comfortable going to get advising now. Your professor's behavior was completely unacceptable, and you should never have been treated like that, regardless of your academic attendance and performance.

What do professors/principal investigators expect when meeting with a prospective graduate student? I've been finishing up my graduate applications for Fall 2023 and I was lucky enough to have a few professors offer to meet with me over Zoom. This university in particular recommends that prospective students reach out to potential advisors to talk about doing research and supporting applications. I've done undergraduate research for a majority of the time that I was in undergrad, roughly 3 years out of 4. While I'm not 100% sure of the exact projects that I would to do research on, I still have a good grasp and one of my top lab choices does very similar research to what I am interested in. Even with all of that in mind, I am still feeling very intimidated and nervous. What are professors usually looking for in these meetings and what should I expect? To what degree should I come prepared? For most of these meetings, especially the one with the professor whose research interests align fairly well with mine, I've prepared to discuss their recent publications, as well as ask questions related to them and their lab. Overall I'm fairly nervous, but I would like to present myself as a potential student who is eager to learn and do research in the lab. I'm just unsure of how to go about these meetings and what to expect, such as what questions that I'll be asked, and what questions that I should ask them.

Ask a lot of questions. Don't be shy about really digging in; this is as much a fact-finding mission for you as for them! What is your mentoring style? How are students funded in your lab? What kinds of research projects do you have in mind? The works! I'm a PI, and I'm impressed when applicants are curious and have thoughtful questions.

Hello guys. I have seen a lot of people in this sub mention that phd graduates have a very low probability to get a permanent job on academia. Is this an accurate fact, about both on humanities and natural sciences? If it is true, then isn't it a problem of academia? Isn't it better for academia to have 'new blood' - young smart people instead of saying to them 'hey, you have worked incredibly hard but go find a job somewhere outside of academia'?

Academia only employs a small proportion of PhDs. Think of it as a factory that produces PhDs for the benefit of society; it only needs to retain a few to keep operating. Some people have spent their lives in school and imagine that their whole future will be there as well. That is an understandable, but extremely dangerous, misperception.

My name appears at the end of a published co-authored paper because of alphabetical order. What can I do about it? I am an undergrad and did research in Coding Theory last year. We were able to publish in a journal. However, my name appears at the end of the published paper. This is not because I was the 4th author of the paper but because my professor simply chose to have our names in alphabetical order since we all made equal contributions to the paper. I am worried that in my CV, it might seem like I was the last author on the paper. Will it be good if I make an asterisk beside the paper or something and explain that the asterisk denotes "equal contributions"? Any other suggestions? I will be applying to Ph.D. programs this fall so the publication would be really helpful for me.

If you're an undergraduate, don't worry about it. Having a paper on your CV at all is what counts; no one expects that an undergraduate made the major contributions to a paper (this isn't always a fair assumption, but it is usual). The fact that you contributed to publishable work is enough for most admissions committees.

If you cannot keep publishing first author papers will you be at risk of losing tenure? Let's say life is so hard your proposals can't get a grant. The only way you can do research is to collaborate to somebody else's project. In this case, the probability of being a first author for some papers might be close to zero since you don't assume a lead/head role in the research. Will you be at risk of losing your position if all you can maintain are just co authorships and not first authorship?

In my experience (chemistry), the first author is usually a grad student, so it's pretty uncommon for faculty to be first author, especially someone who has been a professor long enough to have tenure. They would very likely have grad students writing the papers.

My advisor was fired for repeated sexual harassment over several years. I need advise on publishing articles that they have collaborated on please. I want to keep this anonymous because I'm not sure what I'm allowed to say. I don't want to get myself in any trouble. Furthermore, I don't want to "out myself". My former advisor is very influential and I'm "just" a postdoc. He is one of the most prolific researchers in the field and it could be very obvious who he is. I had a short postdoc in a foreign country that lasted for about a year. I never really developed a strong relationship with my advisor. He seemed aloof and more or less uninterested in my work. I probably spent about twenty minutes in one on one meetings with him every few weeks. I felt like I didn't have enough time to explain my work to him, let alone for him to really contribute significantly to it. He was always busy, particularly as he had a high ranking managerial role. He also had very obvious favorites who he spent more time with. This was my second postdoc and I was fairly independent by this stage and felt like I didn't really need his support anyway. The whole time I was there I felt uncomfortable and anxious around him. However, everyone seemed to be in awe of this guy and I felt like the odd one out a bit. I more or less dismissed my feelings as I had no logical explanation for them. It was just "a feeling". Fast forward to March 2020 and the coronavirus epidemic was really starting to take off. My wife and I weren't enjoying living in this country, so we made a rushed decision to leave almost immediately. My advisor was supportive of this. After arriving back in my home country I continued to be employed for another month in the position. Soon after my employment ended I found out that my advisor has been fired. There was Zoom meeting about it, but I don't speak the language, so I wasn't quite sure what happened and I was afraid to ask. Recently I checked my advisor's Wikipedia page and it says that he was fired from one of his positions and suspended for six months from the other for repeated sexual harassment towards several people over several years. He never acted inappropriately towards me. I don't think he is interested in men. I do feel some guilt though that I dismissed my feelings towards him when he was probably sexually harassing my coworkers, some of whom are very attractive young women. I feel some guilt that maybe there was something I could have done. The dilemma I'm in is that I want to publish articles from this postdoc, but I don't want to be associated with him in any way. I don't want his name on any of my articles. I don't want to support sexual harassment in any way. Furthermore, his contributions have been minimal, although probably enough to justify his name on the articles. I have another collaborator who has generously agreed to help me and I can do the work without my former advisor. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to claim credit for work he has done. I just don't want to associate with him in any way. What do you think I should do? I would like to just never contact him ever again and to publish articles without his name on them. Is this acceptable? Could I get in trouble for plagiarism since technically he has contributed to the work, albeit very minimally? Thanks.

Most journals use the ICMJE requirements for authorship. It doesn't sound like your supervisor made a sufficient contribution to be considered an author—if they did not contribute to the final written paper, they do not meet the above requirements. As per these requirements, it doesn't matter whether the person has been fired or is no longer in academia. It sounds like they could potentially meet the requirements to be included in the Acknowledgments, and if you're going to name someone in the Acknowledgments, you should have their permission to do so. You should really contact your supervisor and ask to include them in the Acknowledgments. If they say no and demand authorship, you should contact your previous institute, and they will be able to assist in your authorship dispute. Source: I work in publishing, so this is how to do things by the book, but I appreciate things often don't get done that way.

I've been accepted to present a paper at an online conference in 3 weeks, but the organizers are not answering my questions! I'm very excited to be presenting my first paper at an International Conference in my field. I have 20 mins to give an online presentation of my PhD research. My big question is - do I need to prepare slides, or will this be a video based conference? I guess only the organizers can answer that question, but I think everyone is still on holiday. What is the general trend these days? Should I plan for slides? That would suit me better than a direct feed of my talking face. Lol. Any suggestions?

Wouldn't you need slides regardless? I can't imagine that 20 minutes of your face talking is going to be very engaging on Zoom. I've done two online conferences since the pandemic started, and everyone has had slides. In fact, I've never attended a talk online or otherwise that didn't include slides to demonstrate what the person was talking about.

An unacceptable paper I rejected was accepted. Might this be a predatory journal? Recently I got a paper to review from an unknown journal. I researched it and I found out that the editor of this journal is a famous, big, completely legit, publisher of a scientific society. However the journal was a brand new one, one of the open source ones that claim to focus on rapid publication, provided that the research is sound while not making judgments on future significance on the paper (no IF yet). Therefore I accepted to review. I tried not to be harsh in the review, as the journal is small and the authors were from a very small non -reasearch focused team, like it was their first paper ever. But the paper was completely wrong, in all aspects. English was terrible, structure was surreal and, anyway, what they tried to do was completely wrong (they misunderstood the basics of what they were doing work). Just to give you an example, the abstract was written like they were telling a story, and it included sentences like "we used script.sh to generate data file processedData.bin" (where script.sh , it appears, is a script they developed and nowhere they stated what it was doing and how). I was not very harsh in the review but I was very clear in the "comments to the editor". Despite this clear, huge problems, I was informed that the paper was accepted pending a "major" revision, but what they asked them was very simple. I'm pretty puzzled by this behavior. Should I start thinking that this reputable editor is behaving like a predatory one?

I researched it and found out that the editor of this journal is a famous, well-respected publisher for a scientific society. Ah, well, maybe fire them an email to make sure they know they are the editor of this journal. Scam journals will often take good people in the field and add them to the board without their knowledge. Or, they convincingly construct false personas that do not exist at all but have very convincing (fake) CVs. Predatory journals (and just garbage journals) are a plague. If you think you're a part of one, you probably are.

First time writing a paper for publication Hi! I am a grad school student. Me and my supervisor is planning to submit a paper for publication. This is supposed to be my first First Author paper. I wrote the first draft and asked my supervisor for her comments and feedbacks. As expected, I received lots of comments from her and she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript. But as I read the revised paper, I feel like it is not the paper that I wrote anymore and felt like I don't deserve to be its first author. My self-esteem actually sank. Now, my question is, is it normal to feel that way? What do you usually do to boost your confidence in writing, and maybe help you accept it as your own? Thanks.

If your supervisor doesn't completely 'destroy' your first draft with edits and suggestions, you're either a genius or they don't care. So it's probably a good sign that they do this. Also, she is also kind enough to proofread the whole manuscript. Not really especially kind, but literally their job as a co-author and supervisor.

Feeling like I am in exile, how did you cope moving to a small city for an academic position? I know this applies to anyone having to move for jobs, but in academia jobs are especially scarce so I wanted to ask here. I am in my 30s and I am from the largest, most lively city of my country. Very pretty, always something to do. Then I moved to another country for my PhD, lived in the capital for 7 years. Again, very lively, parks, events everywhere. After searching (and failing) for a permanent job for so long, I finally found one in a smaller city. Its a great job, the university has great reputation in my field, I have decent colleagues. It makes sense to stay here at least a few years and aim for promotion. But this city is just so plain. I have visited it before with friends but living here alone is a completely different experience. There is nothing historical or beautiful, its just concrete everywhere. When I look at their best restaurants or new cultural events, its just so pathetic. I know I should be grateful for finding a permanent academic job but I just feel like I am wasting my life here. Anyone in a similar position? How did you cope?

I’m in grad school and I’ve lived in a rural US town for the last six years. I’m not going to sugarcoat it; my experience has been unpleasant. It’s a nice place if you like outdoorsing or hiking. But that’s about it. So for half the year when everything is cold and dead, you’re stuck inside. Then things get warm, and you can hike, and I like hiking, or bike, which is like hiking but faster, or boat, which is like hiking but wetter. Or you can go to bars and drink with the undergrads. Making matters worse, I’m just shy of two hours from the nearest mid-sized city. So there isn’t much opportunity to move, save from one small, nothing town to the next. The thing I miss the most? Good restaurants. World cuisine. Really good pizza. Here there are chains, or the local hippie restaurant, which would be interesting if they didn’t always give me food poisoning. As I see it, you have three choices. 1) Quit and do something else. The nuclear option, but IMO something you have to consider. Your happiness ultimately comes first. 2) Move to a better city and commute. I have a professor who does two days on campus and commutes in from the city. It sucks, but it means he can live in a better place and have those experiences. 3) Get over it and get used to what you have available to you. There are always nice parts of any place, and maybe you can learn to like those things about your new home. I totally understand where you’re coming from, though, and it sucks. It’s worse when you don’t know anyone, so if you can at least make a few friends, it may make it more tolerable. Ultimately, though, this kind of thing is a big shit sandwich—no matter what, you’ve gotta take a bite.

Sometimes I feel like academic writing is a contest for who can construct the longest sentence consisting entirely of $5 words that still follows the rules of the English language. Sometimes I get frustrated with the bullshit people write and vow to do a better job even if it's harder and takes longer. Other times I remember that everybody only reads the abstract and conclusion anyway. Sometimes I feel in me the spirit of Deirdre McCloskey; sometimes I despair.

I'm not in academia, but I'm a writer who has worked as a copywriter on master's theses and PhD dissertations, and most recently, as a ghostwriter for a cardiac surgeon turning his academically published papers into a readable popular memoir. I think of academic writing like writing contracts. Most authors of statements in a thesis or dissertation expect to be defended and need to use precise language, no matter how interminable or dense it becomes. My other writing projects are screenplays and novels. In those fields, clarity and concision are prized over accuracy. But you aren't defending your work before crotchety old tenured professors; you're dancing as fast as you can in the court of public opinion.

I resigned from my postdoc position and have 2 weeks left. My boss said he will "harass me with calls/emails" after I leave for work on a paper. Should I report him to HR for this language? Those are his exact words from the call. This has been a really toxic workplace since day 1 which is why I resigned, but I did not tell them why I quit. When asked of my future plans, I just said that the balls are up in the air and I'm still thinking about it. The statement he made was with regard to a co-first author collaborative paper with another lab. I told them very clearly that I will submit a draft before I leave. His words made me really uncomfortable, they're a definite escalation from his previous behavior so I'm considering reporting it. If not, I always planned on writing the following email on my last day. Should I reword it to clarify I'm no longer his employee? "Thank you again for the opportunity to work here. I submitted the draft as discussed to x and y, and will stay in touch with both to ensure completion of this paper. My personal email x@gmail.com (and not my cell #) will be the best way to get in touch with me, I will respond as I'm able to depending on my availability. "

Are you a native English speaker? This is a pretty common idiom, on par with "I've been pestering him to send me the manuscript." "Harass" is a synonym here for 'pester'. It is not a literal threat to harass you.

Does anyone know what the deal is with Nature having a maximum article length of only 5 pages? Doesn’t that seem unreasonably restrictive? So I was looking at Nature's guidelines for authors and they list 5 pages as the maximum article length. Exactly what is the point of this limit? To me it just seems like it would be restrictive on content and what can be discussed.

Nature publishes short, data-dense reports on robust findings of extreme broad interest and significance—the sort of studies expected to have major implications for many researchers across multiple subdisciplines. As such, Nature wants manuscripts honed down to just the information of interest to that audience. So, you won't necessarily get a thorough and exhaustive examination of the problem and data, but you'll get the greatest hits and the central takeaway message. People may complain about that, but realistically, journals like Nature, Science, Cell, etc., exist because no one can read everything, and we need quick, easy access to studies that may force us to rethink our approaches or assumptions in adjacent research fields or may force us to update lectures, textbooks, etc.

Is it possible to raise a family- and really focus on the kids- with both parents in academia? My husband and I are both scientists at heart and we are both finally applying to PhD programs this fall. We are both thinking of going into academia. We always knew we wanted kids eventually but a few weeks ago I had an ectopic pregnancy which really changed my mindset. I now also want children sooner rather than later in addition to wanting to pursue my career. But I’m terrified of the work-life balance in academia and I don’t want to choose which is more important to me. I’m really fortunate that my husband is so supportive of me. We have had a lot of conversations where he made it clear he sees parenting as truly a partnership between us both and would never expect me to do most of the parenting work (very different from what I had in my home growing up). He’s very encouraging of my career goals and would also be an involved parent. Is it possible for both partners to focus on their family and careers in academia? We are even considering starting a family during graduate school- does anyone have experience with this? Is industry a better option for researchers who want plenty of family time?

Mine is not a success story. We received good PhD offers from different continents, so we decided to delay our family plan. We went on the market and received good TT offers, but again, in different continents, which we accepted. In both instances, the best offer we received strictly dominated the others, so we prioritized our careers, hoping to go on the market after 2-3 years. Things are going alright, but not stellar, so now we think that in a year or two one of us will have to give up our TT jobs, otherwise it would be tricky to have kids. I think it can be quite difficult to "focus" on both career and family, but if there is the will, there are ways to balance the two.

How many times can I ask the same professor for a recommendation letter, and how to overcome intense discomfort of asking for these letters? Rec letters are always my least favorite part of any application, simply because I feel like an annoyance to my professors/recommenders every time I ask. I have one particular recommender who has written me letters on two different occasions. I have another program coming up that I would love for her to recommend me for, but I'm worried she will be annoyed with my 3rd request. I'd consider asking someone else, but I don't exactly have a huge pool of names to draw from, as I'm very early on in my college career and the opportunity already requires recommendations from multiple people. Is a third request too many? Additionally, how do I overcome my dread of asking for letters, especially when asking the same person multiple different times?

Once a professor has written one letter for you, it’s far easier to write additional letters since we don’t start from scratch. So, if it makes sense, continue to ask the same person—it will be more work for a new person. However, if you’re a junior or senior, having a person who simply had you in class as a freshman write a letter doesn’t make sense.

What major changes would you make to an academic's job if you had carte blanche? I have worked in UK universities for several years but always on the professional services side (i.e. not an academic) but so many of the academics seem so downtrodden and disheartened by it all. I'm just curious as to what is it that academics see as the main problems for them day-to-day.

Significantly improved job stability and pay. A crackdown on bad behaviors, no more tolerating "lone geniuses" who leave scorched earth behind them, with junior staff's careers left in tatters. Increased funding for PhDs but discourage PIs from taking on self-funded PhDs—or at least put in place safeguards so those students don't just vanish into the system. Make people and project management something that PIs actually have to be good at, and that their career advancement is dependent on. Nurture homegrown talent and keep staff on through the grades rather than insisting on people leaving for career progression. Provide training for leadership, project management, people management, and all the other career skills other industries require their staff to learn. Stop focusing so much on grants and high-impact factor publications and allow faculty to take on more high-risk, longer-term projects. Make sure that you are responsive to complaints, and when serious complaints are upheld, make sure that the individual involved can't simply walk into another job and pick up their abusive habits where they left off. Introduce staff scientist roles (or equivalents for social sciences and humanities) at different grades so that there is an alternative, more stable career track for talented individuals who don't want to be PIs but who can also pick up some of the load from PIs, including teaching, so that PIs can have something approaching a work-life balance. Make it easier for people to leave and re-enter academia from other sectors. Encourage parental leave and provide staff to manage teams/projects while PIs are on leave. Increase everyone's pay.

What are your most and least favorite parts of an academic paper to write? And why?

I find introductions really frustrating, especially if you've already written a paper on a similar topic. Some reviewers will really get on you about not having enough references, and it's like, yeah, sure, there are a million papers in this area, but these are the ones that are good and are actually important here. I have had to add whole paragraphs just to explain areas of work that are outside of scope. Second to that is the experimental section, just because it's the least creative, IMO (again, especially if it's a continuation study). I personally really like writing the body; it's a much more creative process in many ways: figuring out how to organize and communicate everything, really voicing all of the work you've done and how it's paid off. I usually write the body, review it until it's ready, then just slap the other stuff on.

(UK) How are you guys feeling about the DfE saying that academics should still teach face-to-face. I teach nursing students. I do not want to do that in person. They are in and out of hospital every week, they're high risk. But even aside from that, why do I have to teach face to face when every other sector can work from home. I won't lie, I'm on the brink of quitting my job. I've applied for roles outside of academia, and if I had the financial means to I'd leave now. (For more reasons that covid but it is a driving force). How do you all feel about having to teach face to face? Any advice? Also sorry, no idea what flair to add here.

I’ve taught online and in person and found that student engagement is much higher in person. Even I have trouble paying attention to online presentations. Most of my colleagues want to teach in person too. But we’ve all had vaccine boosters, and students are also required to be vaccinated.

What did you give up (long term) for being an academic? Let me preface this by saying I am a senior undergraduate student in the medical engineering area, leaning heavily on neuroengineering and microtechnologies. As I near the end of my degree, I see two paths I want to follow: R&D, or academia. I have little experience in both, so it's not like both are completely unexplored (fortunately) for me. I want to make educated decisions, such as what type of masters to pursue, where I want to live, how it would be best to handle personal finances, etc. And to do this, I would like to decide what I want to do long term. I understand that these two paths are not mutually exclusive, nor is it impossible to transition from one to the other. Having said that, I wanted to ask you as a community, what have you sacrificed (at any level) to have a career in academia?

Opportunities to make money commensurate with education level or experience; stable/non-toxic, merit-based working environments; children (for me, not a huge loss, but for some); my long-term gastrointestinal and overall health. A regular social life. A lot of academia is either little time for socializing or listening to complaints about a system that has been badly converted to an unsustainable business model involving bloated administrations, competing professional priorities, and a focus on increasing enrollment and student satisfaction over student ability and education. The list goes on. It’s so weird to spend time socializing with people who either complain (legitimately) about the job or celebrate when someone gets out of your profession.

My father passed away during the last year of my PhD abroad, how to keep my motivation up and make it through to the end? The title says it all, really. I admittedly came here to vent a little bit, but mainly to look for some advice, either from anyone who has gone through something similar or from those with general advice for getting through really rough times during a PhD. A little bit more about me and my situation: I am doing a PhD abroad, several thousands of kilometers from home, and my deadline to defend my thesis is in less than six months from now. My father passed away a few months ago and, though he had been ill for some time, it was rather unexpected. I quickly flew home and stayed for a few weeks before coming back to work. Since I've been back at work, I've been a complete mess and my motivation has just been hanging by a thread. I am constantly homesick and still grieving a lot. I can become very emotional at unpredictable times. It's very hard to concentrate. Additionally, I'm feeling more isolated than ever, as many friends have moved away recently and I don't speak my host country's language very well. While I would like to take a break (technically possible for up to one year, I believe), it would be complicated. For one, it would involve a visa extension, which would be tricky and expensive. I'm on a tight budget, especially after flying home on a moment's notice those few months ago, so I can't really spend a lot in general, let alone visa fees or extra airfare right now. Lastly, my mum is strongly encouraging me to stay and finish since I am so close to the end. She wants to see me finish my dream and she's worried that something could get in the way of me finishing if I were to take a break. I agree with her and finishing on time is probably my best option. Overall I've been very content with how my PhD has gone and I'm not behind schedule, even after taking almost a whole month away from work. Before my father passed away, I was already feeling a bit of the normal stress and pressure of a PhD student in their final year, but I was extremely motivated and I could handle virtually anything that came at me. But now I just feel so different... like I am suffocating. Dreading the next day, the next task, the next meeting, etc. Each day I feel the motivation draining away more and more and the growing feeling that an inevitable burnout is coming. How can I survive or maybe even try to thrive during these last months? How can I find my motivation again? What are some ways to handle the grief and intense homesickness at the same time as the PhD? For anyone who has faced similar circumstances to any of the above, what helped you the most? Thanks for any and all advice :)

A couple of things. First, it sucks losing your father and will continue to suck for a long time. Someone on Reddit said it better: it's like being in the ocean during a storm. At first, you can just keep from drowning, but eventually, the waves get smaller and it becomes easier to keep above the waves. What I know is this: eventually, thinking of him will bring a smile to your face, not tears to your eyes. As for motivation, the only thing I can suggest is don't quit now. It will be much harder to get back into the swing of things if you take time off (it took me more than a decade to get motivated to finish my degree). I'm also willing to bet that your father would not have wanted to be the cause of you not finishing your degree. Mine was thrilled when he found out I was going back to finish before he died. Push through that degree and share the diploma with him when you visit his grave.

Ever since my advisor passed away, I can't focus on my dissertation, and I 'm terrified Original post here I'm very happy that I've been assigned an excellent new dissertation advisor, who's extremely supportive recently. However, I just can't seem to get back to business since my advisor passed away. I want to graduate this year, but mentally, I can't seem to open my documents and continue on. I get very sad whenever I try, and then I end up like, washing dishes. Any advice for getting over this hurdle would be very helpful!

What you are going through is called "bereavement" or "grief," and it is totally normal to feel the way you do. Check out this page and the links on that page under "Start Here." This page from the National Cancer Institute states that for "most bereaved people having normal grief, symptoms lessen between 6 months and 2 years after the loss." So I would think that you should expect to go through at least a couple of months of reduced productivity. You could look into Student Counseling; most universities offer these services to their students. And it would probably be good to not put more pressure on yourself by insisting to graduate this year. If it happens, good; if not, then you graduate next year. Finally, I would recommend talking with your new advisor about this. Even if he or she is very supportive, he or she needs to know what you're going through so expectations can be adjusted accordingly.

Would wearing a hijab negatively effect your prospects to get an academic job? Will it negatively effect student's perception of you? I'm a masters student in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies.

Hopefully, it wouldn't impact getting a job in Islamic Studies! I can't say for sure it wouldn't, because bigots crop up everywhere. But do not compromise who you are for a job. As for students, some will mind. You can't do anything about that. I teach Psychology of Sex and Gender and have had students take my class who immediately hate me for researching sex and gender. You can't win them all.

[US][PhD][Stat]What to expect in academic job? Thanks for answering. I was asking this because I would be finishing my PhD soon and I am contemplating future career paths. I want to go in an academic position (My PhD is in theoretical Statistics) but there are some causes for concern and confusion. I like a. Thinking thoroughly about a problem. b. Reading related literature. c. Discussing the problem with knowledgeable people. d. Finding interesting research problem and their effects in society. e. Serving some administrative roles. f. Collaboration with people from different disciplines I am neutral towards a. Teaching. I have extensive instructor experience. I don’t particularly like teaching. I don’t hate it. b. Mentoring. I like collaborating more. My mentoring experience is arguably limited. c. Making money. More doesn’t hurt, but I am not dying for it. d. Not doing research. I want to do research, but most people don’t do research and make good money. I am perfectly content with a traditional job. I hate a. Publication pressure. Good research takes time and effort. I don’t work well under pressure. b. Grant demands. It is not as bad in statistics, but I want to be researcher for working on interesting problems. Grant writing shouldn’t be my main focus. c. Unpaid labour. If I am not paid in summer, I am not working for the uni in summer. No meetings, no administrative roles, not a single thing. My students can go do internships, I don’t care. d. Research trends. I am against towards jumping for any hot buzzword. Pivoting research fields to something else takes years. Research is not fast fashion e. Deceit. Selling something for what it is not to garner interest/citation/research funds has become all too common in recent years. I understand why people do it, but I don’t like it. TL;DR. I want to do research, preferably “myself” (not primarily via mentoring). If an academic job does not grant that, and expects me to teach/mentor/write grants/fill administrative duties, with time for research being something I am fighting for constantly, I don’t want it. Considering all of this, what do you recommend for me? Should I go to academics? Is it not for me?

You've done a PhD. You've been around academics, including your supervisor(s). Has a single one had a job that reflects your wants and avoids your hates? Your own experience should tell you this is wildly unrealistic, and that the academic career path is not for you.

I'm interested in an academic career in the Humanities (lit or philosophy), but also terrified by the bleak job market. How should I prepare myself? I'm currently applying to undergrad degree programmes (I have some offers from universities, but not all, yet) and my dream job is being a researcher/lecturer at a university. Unfortunately I've read and heard many terrifying stories about the bleak academic job market for the humanities and how even if you're willing to go to the remotest part of the globe to secure a job, you might not even get one, or you might end up jumping from one adjunct position to another without securing a tenure-track job. Additionally, I've also heard that getting a PhD in the humanities and failing to get into academia will leave you stranded because you're nearly thirty without any working experience and essentially you'll be jobless and broke. As I'm not from a rich family, and not particularly confident of my ability to marry a rich person (lol) the future sounds bleak and terrifying. At the same time I don't know if there's anything more important to me than ideas and books--I feel more at home and alive doing coursework than anything else--I'm the kind of person that gets obsessed and will work compulsively, and I also have emotional and mental health issues that make me doubt my ability to find happiness elsewhere. And all of this makes me think my only chance of finding fulfillment is pursuing an academic career. So I'm not sure what I should do. Should I just go for it? Or find something else to do? Are there people here who've left academia and found fulfilling jobs elsewhere? Any advice would be really appreciated!

Slow down. You haven't had any undergraduate classes, and it's not clear if you're good at any of the things you want to do. Further, there is political maneuvering involved in academia that you may find yourself unable to handle. You may not want to or have the opportunity for career advancement. Further, it's not clear if your undergraduate record is sufficiently good to do a real job. The opportunities presented to people at Ivy League schools are substantially different from those presented to state school students. Come to college with an open mind.

Has anyone left a funded PhD program? (UK) I’m considering quitting my funded PhD program and am looking for advice/stories from people who have felt similar and maybe even went through with it. For some background, I finished my MSc mid-2015 and loved it. I went onto work in my industry and dreamed of continuing onto a PhD to become a specialist. I got PhD funding and started in Oct 2019. Because of the pandemic and a death of a very close family member this experience has been very difficult and different to what I expected. My priorities from life have totally changed over the last couple of years and I now long for a quiet happy life, instead of academic success. I also had covid 2 months ago and have been struggling with fatigue and brain fog ever since. I’ve gone back and forth between full time and part time so I have funding until Feb 2023 then 2 years after that to write up. I’ve realised over the last 2.5 years that I don’t enjoy the subject the way I once did. I’m training for a job in a lab but the last couple of years have shown me how much I hate being indoors all the time. I’ve lost all passion and excitement for the subject and, perhaps most disheartening of all, I no longer see any value in the work I do. On top of this I have experienced a lot of toxicity within the field I’m training to work in and the whole experience has made me realise that I don’t want to work in this area after I graduate. I’ve recently been looking into jobs to supplement my income while I write up and I’ve found that I already have the qualifications and experience to get a well paid job that I could do from home, giving me more flexibility with my time. The industry that I’m training to work in is notoriously underpaid and lacks security compared to other sectors with comparable qualifications and experience which makes me think, if I don’t love this what is the point? The thought of carrying this on for another 2.5 years feels so draining, I honestly don’t know how I will do it. I feel like my life is on hold until this is over and being in my early 30s now I am really wanting to put down solid roots and get on with building my life. Has anyone been in a similar position and if so, what did you do? Would it be possible to write up for an MPhil at this stage so it wouldn’t all be for nothing? Any help and/or advice would be gratefully received. Thanks!

February 2023 is for all intents and purposes tomorrow? Sure, you can quit, but if all you have to do is finish off 6 months and write it up, what's the point? You should have a significant proportion to write up already. If this isn't the case, and only really you or your supervisor will know, then you probably have a significant issue anyway. Facts are, having a PhD, even outside your field, will look good. The amount of people sticking "PhD" after their names for sales jobs...of which their PhD is nothing to do with the product they are selling at all...or the number of companies who go "blah blah 80% of our staff have PhDs" means having it is worth 6 months and then writing and defending. What you have to realize is a PhD isn't some all-encompassing thing, it is a means to an end, that is over once it ends and you go do something else.

I just got accepted to one PhD program, should I inform the other ones I'm still waiting for that I've been accepted and ask for some sort of counter offer? I've applied to two schools, both of which I would really like to go to. One of them got back to me today with an offer (fully funded). Should I tell the other school? Am I crazy in thinking they might make a counteroffer? Or at least make an offer sooner?

You are not going to get a counteroffer and you risk making some people very annoyed. I'd only email if there is a deadline to accept that you risk missing, and a school you rank higher has not gotten back to you. Don't use that to negotiate. Just to say something like, "Hey, I want to go here but haven't heard back. I have another offer, but this is my top choice. Can you update me on my application status?"

A question to STEM PIs and Professors: Would you hire a postdoc who has published a lot in Frontiers journals? Considering that a lot of people view Frontiers as "predatory" (I myself do not fall into this category), would you be skeptical about hiring someone who has published a lot in these journals?

People in this sub can be very elitist about where others publish. There are very well-respected researchers in my field that publish in medium-impact (~4.0) Frontiers and MDPI journals, which this sub regularly turns its nose up at. Having said that, I have tried to spread out the journals I publish in as much as possible—it can look weird if all of your publications are in the same exact journal. People might think you have an in at the journal and are getting preferential treatment or something.

Want to be a professor but worried about actual impact I might be able to have Hello, so I’m about to start my master’s in literature and culture studies and genuinely love my subject. The post might seem ridiculous and I have a long way to go so there will be changes, but I find this subreddit really helpful and would like to get some opinions, hear of experiences, know of other options, etc. For a while now, I’ve been considering whether I want to be a professor. I work as an undergraduate assistant currently and I always knew academia has a lot of problems (I’ve been fortunate enough to be around people who’ve had jobs there so I have some idea of the unsavoury aspects) but recently, while checking student copies, I felt extremely disillusioned. I was asked to just “classify” papers and the teacher said I don’t need to correct the mistakes. It left me feeling horrible because I knew the students wouldn’t really get information on where they made mistakes even though there were some clear patterns, both in the papers of individual students and entire sections. I know academia has been commercialised but can professors even give time to students? Or even just the students who are struggling? Can they actually mentor students in a way that benefits the student’s lives? Are they allowed to share their works with the general public or do they even have the time to do that? I’ve seen prominent scholars offering lectures accessible to the public but they charge exorbitant prices like $300 for them and the academics may not decide the fee but I personally want no part of that. I know the answers to these questions might vary based on place but a general idea would be great. The other issue I guess is more complex. I keep hearing statements like academics are detached from reality, etc. But that always struck me as strange because fields like psychology and sociology involve so much research based on interviewing people? And I sometimes feel like that is something people say because they don’t like what some academics say. I don’t know. I’ve met some professors who are out of touch and honestly they just left a bad taste in my mouth. A part of me wants to just get an okay paying less stressful job and make educational videos on youtube, both somewhat diluted but entertaining ones (I think some dilution is bound to happen if entertainment is an aim) and also in depth somewhat dry and more academic ones. I have always enjoyed fiction but thankfully in my undergrad I came across amazing novels, literary theory, etc and a lot of the material really seem like they would be able to change people’s perspectives or at the least increase their empathy toward certain groups. I’m not idealistic but I do believe that exposing people to new texts and ideas can help them live better lives and someone somewhere might be helped even the slightest bit. And the whole wave of people with degrees making these insanely good quality videos that reach hundreds of thousands of people for free is really inspiring despite the chances of very few actually being picked up by the algorithm. However, I also feel tempted by the idea of maybe one day getting tenure and having some form of stability (I am aware that the opportunities are shrinking and it’s very difficult but still). The problem is I don’t want to be in a place where I can’t actually have some form of a positive impact or am highly restricted. I’ve had some great teachers but their influence on me has been restricted to studies. I have no idea if the same teachers could help students who for eg could not devote most of their time to studies like me or struggled in uni because of a range of reasons (I’ve been lucky in that I found what gets me to study and I really like my subject so even if I did bad initially I picked up my grades by the time finals and assignments were due. Also thankfully faced no severe emergencies in my undergrad years). TLDR-Is being a professor worth it if I want to reach a lot of people and have a positive impact? Or should I go for a job that pays well or takes up less time and try being an educator (somehow) on the side?

As someone with a PhD in literature and cultural studies (in the U.S.), I don't think that what you want will align with a career as a professor. I would never just "classify" my student papers—they always get significant feedback—but my putting in time and effort to help them improve does not equal their putting in time and effort to improve. Are there a couple of students each semester whom I build a relationship with and who ask me for some support? Totally. But there are 15+ more who are perfectly pleasant and who do not want or need my mentorship. Additionally, the time it takes to succeed in the academy is a lot. If you want a tenure-track job, your research needs to come first. Take a look at how PhD programs are structured (ones you'd want to attend), and that will show you how you'll be spending 6+ years of your life. What you want certainly is doable—the public humanities is something I'd encourage you to look into—but you don't need a PhD to do that (and it might actually hinder your ability to succeed in that area).

Have you ever witnessed (or heard of) an institution being solely responsible for the destruction of a PhD candidates' successful completion? Just curious really - has an institution ever dropped the ball so badly in terms of support for their PhD candidates that they've been forced to quit or master out? If so, what happened? Where is the candidate now? There seems to be a trend cropping up at my own institution of 'collateral damage' that gets swept under the rug and it's so, so sad. So many broken hopes and dreams.

I was a non-traditional student who worked full time while getting my master's degree. I knew so little about academia that I didn't think anything of it when my committee chair told me he would be on sabbatical during the semester I graduated. As you can imagine, this made my life extremely difficult, and I had to figure out literally everything on my own. At one point, the department chair got involved to help me get his signature on a document I needed to graduate. It was super shitty, but it also wasn't any different from my undergraduate experience or the rest of my graduate experience. Universities are hostile places for students who work and are first-generation. I am now a professor at the same university and constantly have to run into and work with that jerk. The worst/best part is he doesn't even remember me because I got married and changed my last name. My own committee chair doesn't know what I look like! And people are always recommending that I work with him, and I'm always saying no. I'm still bitter. But my career is fine. I attended a different university for my next degree, and everything was much smoother.

Academics, what would be your advice for a PhD student looking to pursue a successful academic career? If you could give strategic career advice to your younger self, what would your advice be and why? Looking for some solid advice here and I appreciate some people may have regrets entering academia in the first place but please no comments along the lines of "don't do it"! (:

I think perseverance is huge. This whole academic training thing is a roller coaster. You're high on a publication, then low when an experiment doesn't work, then high when one does, then low when a grant gets rejected, then high when one gets funded. I am an assistant professor now, but it took 2 years on the job market, about 75 applications, 6 interviews, and 2 offers. It's like that for everyone (or at least most people), and you need to find strategies to ride out the ups and downs without giving up.

Discovered a blatant case of a colleague plagiarizing my work. What do I do? I agreed to peer review an opinion/review paper for a journal. No authors or institutions were listed as the journal wanted to blind us. As I was reading it, I increasingly felt like huge chunks of the the text were oddly familiar. Turns out the author copied paragraphs of text verbatim from a separate project that I’m involved with and wrote the background for. Same text, same references, everything. The project details are not publicly available yet, so only the project team has had access to this document along with select reviewers. Additionally I found text copied from email correspondences that I had with a few team members in the manuscript and were portrayed as this individual’s commentary, so I’m pretty confident I know who this person is now. To make things even more absurd, I previously reviewed a paper where the suspected individual was the lead author (was not blinded for that one) and noticed the background section was copied from another online resource. I let the editor know about this issue at the time and advised that the section be revised and cite back to the online resource. At the time I tried to give this person the benefit of the doubt so left it at that. I now have two occurrences over a short time frame where this person has plagiarized text and I’ve caught them. This second time they plagiarized me for about 50% of the manuscript and I’m really mad. This person is at a different institution, but I’m going to have to interact with this person frequently through this project and our field generally. I guarantee this is an ongoing pattern/behavior and will continue until someone steps in. This individual has also completed more than enough training and published several times to know how wrong all of this is. I’m now also concerned they’ve likely used material from me and others for other grants/projects they’ve been working on as well. We are going to notify the journal about what happened, but what other steps should be taken? This is just so egregious. I can’t just let this die with the journal and pave the way for it to happen again with a different journal, review panel, etc. This person is young and I don’t want to end their career, but they need a serious intervention and some sort of consequences for their actions...ugh.

We are going to notify the journal about what happened, but what other steps should be taken? Document everything thoroughly. Backups, archives, screenshots, you name it. Both original documents, relevant correspondence, etc. Treat this like you're going into a divorce (with perhaps shared custody of the children, since you're continuing to collaborate on a project together). Hope for the best, but assume the worst. Do what it takes to protect anything of yours that there's a remote chance this person could get their hands on. Back up, archive, and separate your digital self from this person (for instance, in your collaboration, were you using a shared drive, sharing data, etc.?). I know this is paranoid, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure because you never know if this person will be graciously humbled or wildly outraged and lash out, or somewhere in between.

[Hungary] My laboratory supervisor wants to throw a house party to celebrate one of our labmember's paper getting published, and also to celebrate him getting a new house. How should I behave? Act? How can I respectfully leave when I get overwhelmed? I'm part of a rather small theoretical/computational chemistry laboratory - there's the professor, a PhD student and myself (BSc 3rd yr). We finally got all calculations done, finished final draft and submitted the manuscript. We expect it to get thru with revisions, so prof wants to celebrate (and he conveniently has new house and covid restrictions are getting lifted). Is this a Hungarian thing to do? If not, what should I expect? How should I behave? And - I tend to get overwhelmed from socialisation/noise due to congenital stuff, how do I back out once it's too much without offending him? To note: Ages - Prof 57, PhD Cand. 27, myself 24.

Is this a Hungarian thing to do? Not specific to Hungary, I'm in Canada and have gone to my lab supervisors' homes for parties (holidays, graduations, etc.). If not, what should I expect? Think of it like a work party. Snacks, drinks, socializing, etc. How should I behave? Behave like you would any other time you would interact with the professor and other students. How do I back out once it's too much without offending him? I'd just say you weren't feeling well and excuse yourself. Don't overthink it.

Advice please -- I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc in my field I'll be graduating within a year and the job market is looming. At this point in my career, I don't think I'm qualified to be a postdoc. I can get specific if you think it's relevant, but what it comes down to is that there are some skills that are essential to succeeding in my field, and I am just not very good at them (e.g., programming). I am a smart person and I know my field inside and out, but I'm just not very good at these things. If something depends on it I can limp through and get a program written with a great deal of help from google and better programmers, but it will never be as good as one written by someone who knows what they're doing. I always thought I would develop these skills as a grad student but the truth is 5 years have passed and I'm still barely competent. I wouldn't hire me as a postdoc knowing how bad I am at these things. I don't know what to do. My PI is no help. Any advice would be appreciated.

Dude, I'm a programmer. I've been one for over 20 years and think I'm pretty good at it, and so do others. The stuff I write daily is written with a "great deal of help from Google and better programmers," exactly as you wrote. It's normal and exactly how it's supposed to be.

Is it possible to get research experience before grad school but after undergrad? Hi there, the title is pretty self-explanatory. I have already graduated from undergrad and am working a field position this summer. I would like to go to grad school but I didn't do any research during my time as an undergrad. Would it be possible for me to get experience working on any research, even though I'm no longer a student anywhere?

Definitely. You can get paid doing it too, if you get a position as a lab technician or research assistant. It's common for people to work for a year or two in a research lab before applying to graduate school.

Does anyone really use something else than Google Scholar (+Forward/Backward Search) and Sci-Hub? Is there anyone who is really using anything else but Google Scholar and forward backward search? I tried using other searches/databases but I will either get the same results or worse results. Is anyone really not using sci-hub? Even if I have access to quite some databases, it seems Sci-Hub is much faster and much more convenient. I am just interested in how other people do research. Like in real, not from any YouTube Tutorial that explains how to do research. What do you really do? Because for me it is basically limited to Scholar + Forward/Backward search and Sci-Hub.

I'm in social science and I almost exclusively use JSTOR and my school's library databases. I'll go directly to major journals if I think they'll have anything close to what I'm looking for. I don't think I've ever used Google Scholar substantially.

Does anyone else feel pressured to fill their days? Seeing as I literally just finished my PhD annual review report my supervisors haven’t assigned much work in order to give me space to write the documents. Now that it’s out of the way I kind of feel like “now what?” . It’s not like I haven’t got things to do it’s just that the work I’m doing is mainly editing and running batches of code as well as some light theory/literature reading. Does anyone else feel like they’re pressured to fill their days?

I think I understand what you're feeling. When I finished my PhD, it took me at least 3 months to "come down" after the submission stress, working long hours, always feeling pressure to fill my days to ensure I had positive results (negative results were a big no-no) to show at weekly lab meetings. There's also pressure to finish the PhD in time so we can get on with our future (which is also uncertain). I think we work this way for so long (years for a PhD) that it becomes almost normal for us to function at this level of stress. Finding balance after it all has been a long, continuous journey that I still haven't quite mastered. I'm still an academic, so I don't think I can fully recover from this pressure for productivity until I leave the ivory tower (a transition in progress). My advice is to take advantage of easier days, go out, get your life back. No one talks about the recovery needed after a PhD—give yourself time to adjust. This is "normal."

TT-age researcher, found out to have ADHD. Can do good research, cannot write reports/papers. What are my options? As it says, I (35) have just found out to have textbook ADHD. In case it's relevant, I'm in STEM and I work in image processing/medical imaging/neuroscience. Which explains why I'm so good at doing the few stuff I care enough about for which I can hyperfocus. But I've always struggled *massively* with anything remotely related to writing. Which is quite bad considering that we're required to churn out papers every other day. It's so bad that I don't even have finished writing, let alone submitted or published, papers about projects I've finished. Also, I'm starting to coordinate people, but it turns out planning it's another thing we're not good at. And... I can notice that. At this age, I'd be expected to transition to a permanent position. My h-factor, despite everything, is good enough to compete for TT positions. But, considering what I've said, if I pushed my way to a professorship I'd end up being in a perfect Peter's law situation, rewarded for being good at something by being given a position where I'd truly suck. Also, I'd be incredibly stressed and unhappy for what I'd be required to do. But I still need a job and, as I'm pretty good at what I do, I'd like it to be in academia. What do I do? Are there some jobs for people that just want to "research"? Doing stuff instead of writing reports?

I am much older than you and have just been diagnosed, virtually in time to retire. There are behavioral strategies and ways to learn how to do things that don't come naturally to you. There aren't many things that don't require being able to follow through or organization, and if so, not for very long before it bites you in the ass. So I recommend seeing a good behavioral therapist that specializes in this and learning some things. And I have to point out that many people at your level also struggle with being bad writers and don't have ADHD. If you found a place that just deals with imaging, as in a shared facility or CRO or something, you will still have to write reports, keep organized SOPs, and manage a lot. There is no part of research where these things are not a substantive factor.

Do you have a target audience when writing research papers? I’m a market research professional who’s heading back to school after years of industry work, and I’m trying to reorient my perspective to suit academic life again. In marketing and advertising, it’s a rule to tailor your copies according to your target audience. In academic writing, is there such a thing? Is it a given for the audience to be fellow scholars in your field? Who do you imagine reading when you write your papers?

Yes. Some of my papers are most appropriate for clinicians; some are most appropriate for public health policymakers; some are most appropriate for other people directly in my field; and some are for no one.

At what pace do you write research papers? How many hours a day can you write? I'm currently working on a research paper. Just wondering, for those of you in STEM or social science areas- what is your pace of writing? How many pages do you write per day? In other words, if you did not have other major obligations (classes, meetings, etc.), how much could you write in a day? How long would it take you?

I find that for every good day (4-5) pages I have to put in several "bad" days, which consist of reading papers, editing, outlining, playing with data, and maybe only writing a few lines. These days are not wasted time. I need them to get the story straight in my head before I can get it out onto the page. They feel tedious as hell, though.

Being arrested for a social cause - does it impact grad admissions or career in academia? I'm heavily involved in community organizing. I am concerned that one day I may face an unfair arrest for merely peacefully protesting, as I've witnessed other community members be arrested for non-violent action (such as blocking a street; blocking a path and chanting inside a building). Has anyone in academia that's involved in activism and arrested for a social movement find that their arrest has created obstacles in their career or have impacted their admission to graduate programs? For context, I live in the U.S.

It will depend on the university and the cause, as well as the details of the arrest. I'm an older person. Back in the 1960s, in California, an arrest for a Civil Rights protest or some anti-war protest would count against admission to any University of California campus, but might help with Stanford.

To the dog owners: How has dog ownership complicated your life in academia, especially during post-docs I’m in physics so making this STEM specific I’m considering adopting a Labrador and am conflicted because I’m really not sure where I’ll end up after the PhD and the last thing I want is to have to give it up. What has been your experience with dog ownership during an early academic career? I’m also interested in perspectives by those in industry if any are here, or have bounced between industry and academia.

Having a dog during my PhD has been wholly positive. It helps with boundaries (I need to go home, my dog needs a walk; no, I cannot stay extra hours, my dog has a vet appointment today, etc.), she provides unconditional love, and she ensures I get outside and get some exercise every day. I had to move across the country for my PhD, and of course, she came with me. She’ll come with me for all of the next steps too! If you don’t have the flexibility in your work-life balance at all, I might not recommend it—they are living, breathing creatures that need a solid portion of your day. But it’s very doable and has only enhanced my experience (molecular biology PhD at a state school).

How to deal with detailed student emails that is partly outside the scope of the topic? I am teaching a topic that's mostly within my area but I do not know everything about it by heart. I cover the textbook, give extra readings I am familiar with and mark their assignments with enough feedback. Lately I have been getting demanding and sometimes rambling emails from the same 2-3 students who usually list 8-10 questions. My first instinct is to reply very quickly and some can be easily be found in the lecture recordings or readings. But some are deeper questions about things that are outside the scope. They almost get lost in the footnotes that refer to other footnotes or cases from decades ago, misinterpret them and claim the opposite in the scope of what we actually covered. It takes hours of my day to figure out find what they read, where they went wrong and got confused. I like that they are critical and want to know more about it but it's also taking all of my time and they come back with more questions almost immediately, i feel like a private tutor sometimes. How can I deal with this without looking incompetent or dismissive?

Ask them to set an appointment to meet with you or come to office hours. They shouldn't expect an email response to that many questions. Ask them to bring the book/article they are confused about to the meeting. It is totally fine to say, "This is a conversation better had in office hours. Please swing by so we can chat!"

How to deal with abrasive student over extra points I just started out as a faculty member for the very first time and I am now getting to have my first round of angry student responses over final grading. One student had a pretty arrogant tone in demanding extra points for two qs. One of them is a flat out no since it was multiple choice and it was explicitly mentioned in the instructions that there would be no partial credit in his case of selecting both the right and wrong answer. The other one pertains to the grading rubric for a subjective question. My problem with revealing the grading rubric (from my past experiences working for another instructor as a TA) to the class has been chaotic. Students in that case swarmed Piazza with venomous rants and did not even spare the poor prof in his RateMyProf profile. I do not want to go personally go through that same experience as my prof did right now since I have to start preparing courses for the upcoming quarter. Any advice on dealing with this would be most welcome!

Firstly, the moment you worry about ratemyprofessor bullshit is the moment you ransom yourself to pointless fuckery. Ignore it. Unless you genuinely feel that the rubric is inappropriate, the most you say is that you'll review whether it needs updating for future years. If you're happy with the rubric, you say that it's not changing, and you can explain why if you feel so inclined. *DO NOT* get into a bartering situation with students about grades—that way lies madness and chaos. You are the teacher. What you say goes. Many students are famously terrible at judging their own performance. It is not your job to make students happy; it is your job to educate, and then quantify students' success at learning by enforcing standards. EDIT—and one final point that gets missed—for every loud, obnoxious student you make happy by modifying your grading criteria, you upset several quiet, conscientious students who just did it right in the first place. Don't pander to loud assholes; you compromise your efforts, those of other students, as well as your reputation.

Jealousy in academia and how to deal with it Dear people of Reddit, It’s time for me to get a reality check and hopefully some good advice from the hivemind. Throwaway for obvious reasons. I am currently working Post-PhD and have a good number of papers out (h-index >20). I am struggling with irrational feelings when it comes to the work of others, and I want to work on that. Some of this I potentially can attribute to some experiences during my Ph.D. that I will detail later. At its core, I am getting jealous of my co-workers for their success. If someone submits a paper and gets good reviews, I have a hard time feeling happy for them. On this note, I also have issues celebrating my own success. Whenever there is work that I think is subpar, I feel that they had it easy. This is particularly the case when I see people making quick studies, e.g., when the project and publication process runs smoothly. Whenever I see that a co-worker does solid work, I get envious and think why I didn’t do this. I then have the feeling that they have found their niche, and I am sad that I don’t have mine - although I probably, objectively have one. The absurd thing is that this is even the case when I am a co-author of a study - so even when I would benefit from my colleagues’ success. From my Ph.D. I instilled some unhealthy “rules” from a very ambitious PI. Some of them are obviously very questionable, but those are some of the first thoughts that come up in my mind and might help to rationalize what I am feeling: 1. You need to be the first or corresponding author of a study so that it has value. >> I guess this is why I don’t value being “just” a co-author on a paper. 2. The value of a paper is dependent on the journal. >> Before I see myself asking what the study is about, I rather think about the journal. 3. My Ph.D.-PI had very high standards and would become very nit-picky. >> e.g., when I find a typo, I devalue work disproportionally and assume the findings won’t hold up. I get angry when I see published work that has questionable data quality 4. Once you finish a paper, directly move on to the next one. >> I have a hard time reflecting and celebrating success - or rather acknowledging success. I often talk my work down. I recently published a paper with very good reviews and then had nagging thoughts that others published in higher-impact journals. This often leads to the feeling that I am glad that it is over and not that I achieved something, as there is always something "better". 5. Metrics are everything. >> I check out people’s track records on Google Scholar and compare myself and devalue people with fewer papers / lower citations. I get upset when they are further along the line. I am happy that I can share this here and would be looking forward to hearing perspectives or maybe strategies on how to work on this — or even telling me this is normal. Thanks a lot.

I think for many academics, myself included, this is a very normal sentiment to feel. Except for #2, I generally agree with your rules, even though it may not be healthy; I can't really help it. The way I deal with it is, I tell myself (and it's true) that science is not a zero-sum game. Meaning, others' gain is not your loss. This is especially true if they're your labmates' successes. Your labmates publishing a high-profile paper means that your lab and the PI gain fame and notoriety, leading to more money for the lab, more meaningful letters of recommendation from the now-famous PI, etc., all of which help you out indirectly.

Professors & Faculty Members: When reviewing applications for graduate students, how do you evaluate a candidate's potential for research? What qualities in an applicant demonstrate strong potential as a successful researcher? Hey there. As a prospective grad student wishing to pursue a STEM field (Computer Science), I read Phillip Guo's excellent article on grad applications. My key understanding is that for M.S. and Ph.D. applicants *the biggest factor in a successful application is a candidate's research experience*. Likewise as a corollary, should the applicant lack actual experience the second-best thing would be their *research potential*. Hence my question is: when you review an application, *what are some of the signs that you look for in order to evaluate a candidate's potential? What are the qualities in an applicant which demonstrate a strong potential as a future researcher?* I'm interested in these answers because I am an undergraduate myself who is applying for a M.S. in Computer Science, but I come from a Humanities (Philosophy/Classics) background without any prior experience in STEM research. As an academically-talented student with an aptitude for the Humanities, I want to know how I can best present myself as a serious candidate, with excellent potential for graduate-level research and scientific inquiry. Thank you very much!

You should be able to get into an MS without too much research experience, etc. That advice is mostly for PhDs. Lots of MS CS programs nowadays welcome students from non-CS backgrounds, though you may have to take some bridging courses. Bear in mind, though, that if you are interested in a PhD down the line, most good schools will not seriously consider your application without some research experience, so perhaps that should be a priority while you are doing your MS.

Professors of Reddit, what do you really think about undergrad research students? Are we just a charity case? Do we actually contribute? Today, I overheard 2 grad students talking about how the undergrads they supervise always ask stupid questions and are generally incapable of working independently. Since I'm working on my senior project with a prof now and that makes me wonder if that's how my prof thinks about me too. How different are senior undergrads and first year grad students in terms of work ethics and ability? How can I make sure the quality of my work is closer to that of a grad student than that of a sloppy undergrad?

It really varies. A lot of students do create more work than they help, though often that is more the grad students' issue to deal with than the professor (at least in larger labs where undergrads are likely to work under a grad student). A lot of factors are at play. With a grad student, sure they know nothing at first, but you keep them around long enough that eventually they are quite valuable. With a part-time undergrad, often by the time they are useful, they are leaving. But in general, the purpose of an undergrad isn't so much to be useful, but to be trained. Professors (at least good ones) love mentoring and creating the next generation of scientists. You are there to be trained and learn, not just be useful. A few tips to be a "good" undergrad: 1) Google before you ask a question. 2) Try to problem-solve on your own before you ask for help, so that when you do ask, you can say, "I tried x, y, and z." 3) Be curious and self-directed/self-driven. I like undergrads that get into something because they are interested in it, not because they are told to do that next. 4) Care about the process, not the end result. Research is messy and not linear. Don't be dead set on getting something published; enjoy the journey and what you learn from it. 5) The most helpful things you can do are be a good citizen—clean up, report broken items, things that need replacing, etc. A lot of research is boring admin stuff/repetitive things. I've had undergrads say they are not there to do that. Ok, so I am?

How to summarize PhD in 15 minute presentation? I will give a 15 minute presentation at a (non-academic, but research field) job interview, overviewing my previous work. I have my thesis defense presentation (exhaustive and long). Any tips on how to shave this down and focus the presentation? I am overwhelmed by the idea.

So you must run into this at parties. You meet up with someone who has a bachelor's in whatever, and they say, "Oh, you're a PhD student? That's cool. What do you study?" and you have 30 seconds to explain what you do without sounding like a know-it-all who's stringing together long words to sound smart. You do the same, except this time you're allowed pictures. Focus on the bare minimums. No one cares about your experimental details. Bare minimum, focus on the **why**, focus on the **results**, focus on **why they should care**. Forget the how (breeze by as fast as humanly possible). For the love of God, don't put any equations in, except one simple equation, and only if you're going to be using it as a prop rather than letting it stand for itself. Less is more. No one's ever been sad that the presentation ended too soon. Less text, more pictures. Less text, more oratory. Less text, less text. Actually, cut down on the text some more. Hope this helps!

Can somebody write a dissertation outside of academia, enroll in a Ph.D. program, and submit it? This is purely hypothetical. Let's say somebody really enjoys the humanities (since a hard science would likely require actual lab time) and spends nights and weekends for several years working on a pet project. At the end, he has produced a several hundred page original work, with appropriate research and citations, etc. Would he be able to enroll in a Ph.D. program--maybe a European program where there is no coursework?--and submit his dissertation?

Not from any reputable university. Even if you didn't have to complete any coursework (classes or thesis credits) and further assuming there was no residency requirement for the program, you'd still need to find a professor to lead your examination committee and multiple others to populate it. As a professor, I can't imagine any scenario that ended with me agreeing to do that for a random person who cold-emailed me with a dissertation attached.

What can I do about my bad/toxic/inappropriate advisor? TLDR; My primary research advisor is problematic but worse to me specifically and singles me out compared to the other lab members. I'm scared I won't be able to complete my degree because of this advisor and don't know who to go to/what to do to handle the situation. This will be a long one, but I really need help. I don't love asking for help, but I'm at a breaking point and don't know where else to turn. Many pieces make this a new and complex situation that I've never seen, and there’s a lot of context that makes it essential to why I feel stuck in a corner. Details for context: * Field - Psychology (Neuroscience) * Title/Year - On an external grant, initially accepted into the program as a TA, just finished 2nd year, completed master's degree before joining the Ph.D. program * Country - USA Some anonymous names to make it easier to follow: * Primary Research Advisor = "Dr. F" * Other Graduate Student in Dr. F's lab = "Caroline" I was accepted into the Psychology program and quickly learned that the advisor was impossible to work with: forced me to take an additional outside-University course, monopolized work time with monologue-based meetings, had not graduated a student/helped them meet their milestones for graduation, etc. I discovered that the last student this advisor had accepted left their lab within weeks of joining the program for similar issues. I spoke with the Psychology department chair about my concerns. The chair agreed to be my signing advisor so I could remain in the program and referred me to others for research advisership. I joined Dr. F's Neuroscience lab, learned about my potential dissertation plans, began looking into them, and learned about the animals. After extensive research, building my dissertation committee, and fully planning my dissertation, the primary method was pulled from me. Dr. F had been aware that this method was the only thing needed for my research, but he did not fight for me to be able to use it. Instead, Dr. F suggested another dissertation. Caroline, the only other graduate student in Dr. F's lab, had decided on her dissertation plan earlier in the same week in which I needed to reorganize mine, which centered around investigating a very specific type of enzyme. Dr. F told me that I must incorporate the same very specific type of enzyme in my dissertation, essentially laying out the methodology but leaving the research questions up to me. After some time in the lab, I noticed favoritism and an interesting/strange relationship between Dr. F and Caroline. They went to breakfast together, had other private meetings, and often texted about personal matters. I observed how Caroline would treat animals under her care, which was unseen by Dr. F because he was never with the animals. I noticed that she was neglecting to care for post-operative animals, failing to sacrifice suffering animals, and not caring for animals over an extended period, resulting in animal death. I finally told Dr. F that Caroline was abusing animals and that I was concerned the lab would be shut down if she continued her same behavior. Dr. F ignored the concerns, and more of Caroline’s animals died because of negligence. Dr. F’s lab was reported for noncompliance to the university and the federal organization of animal research *solely* because of Caroline’s problematic behavior. This noncompliance report was discussed with the lab group as a “lab culture” problem and "lack of communication" by Dr. F and Caroline. To this day, Caroline has not substantially changed her behavior in her research. More bad things that have happened: * Dr. F will uncomfortably touch/grab my (and other undergraduate women’s) shoulder(s)/arm(s) * Dr. F yelled at an undergraduate in a lab meeting * Over several months, I repeatedly sent Dr. F the information for my qualifying exams (he’s the only person who can fully approve this as he’s my primary research advisor) * Dr. F told me in a meeting that I should take time off if needed, then when I took a day off, he stated in my annual review that I “let personal problems interfere with work” * Dr. F goes on lots of vacations and takes days/weeks off a time, sometimes without warning * Dr. F consistently ignores my emails with questions about research but continues to ask me to be communicative * Dr. F regularly cancels meetings with me for no reason One of Dr. F’s primary funding sources states explicitly that he must research this very specific enzyme, but now the entire lab is suddenly done investigating this. I do not know whether this is entirely his own decision or due to Caroline’s influence. However, I'm concerned that their "relationship" may have partially influenced him to change this. During our next meeting (which was postponed twice by Dr. F), he insisted that I change my dissertation focus and forgo investigating the very specific type of enzyme. Dr. F implied that if I wanted to continue on the same dissertation path, it would not only be a bad choice for my career, but he also likely would not be supporting me by providing the resources because he doesn’t want to investigate this enzyme and it won’t provide him with any progress. I have collected nearly half of the data for Aim 1, which includes an investigation of the very specific type of enzyme. I was supposed to begin Aim 2 this summer, exclusively about the enzyme. I was supposed to begin my qualifying exams this month. I’m supposed to have 2 years left in my degree. I spent the last year teaching myself about this very specific type of enzyme because Dr. F was not assisting in my training. I spent the last year learning the techniques for the planned Aim 2. Now I’m lost and can’t even get a meeting or replies to my emails asking for help. I don’t want to give up, but I don’t know who to turn to or what to do. My Psychology department chair has no real authority over Dr. F. If I tried to go to Dr. F’s department chair, I don’t think they would take me seriously because he has been seen in high regard and Caroline (who is a student in the same department that Dr. F is faculty) is doing well under his mentorship and likes him. Trying to talk to anyone about this makes me feel like the problem student because I already have changed advisors in this program, and I feel so singled out by Dr. F, but all I want is to do sound science and graduate!

At the very least, an anonymous email to either the committee that oversees animal research, the regulator, or your research governance office (depending on how it works with you) outlining the ongoing problems with the animals and naming the individuals, I think, is warranted. The other thing here is you need to separate out the wider lab problems from your problems. You're concerned about going to the chair because they like Caroline, but you shouldn't make your discussion about Caroline. Your issue is you and your PhD. So make the conversation about that. The tighter and narrower you make your complaint, the harder it is for them to ignore it and the easier it is to deal with. If you go in and drop all of this on the chair's desk, then your PhD is probably going to end up at the bottom of the pile to sort out and will get lost in the resulting debate while you're painted as impossible to work with. Talk to the chair; they agreed to be your adviser, so take them up on it, but only talk about what you need to get done with your PhD. And if you do send an anonymous email, the less you say about it to anyone else, the more protected you'll be.

80000 Hours claims it's possible to join Biomedical PhD without background in Biology. In your experience, is that true? Here: https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/biomedical-research/ The exact claim: >Note that you don’t need to study Biology undergraduate to enter many biomedical PhD programs – it’s possible to enter with other science or mathematical subjects.2 and >For example MIT’s admission page: “**Does it matter if I’m a chemist, physicist, or mathematician rather than a biologist?** Yes, it means that we’re really interested in you! Our program is designed for students with diverse backgrounds, and students who have majored in chemistry, physics, and mathematics as undergraduates have done extremely well here.” MIT Department of Biology: FAQ About Applying. > >Also Harvard’s admission page: “To qualify for admission, applicants must demonstrate strong enthusiasm and ability for the vigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge. Minimal requirements include a bachelor’s degree and undergraduate preparation in the sciences.” Harvard Division of Medical Sciences: Admissions To me, this sounds woefully idealistic. Maybe MIT/Harvard don't have explicit rules against non-bio people, but I doubt it happens in reality with any statistically relevant frequency. I am asking because I am in an Electrical Engineer major and could switch easily into Physics, but I am eyeing Biomedical graduate school and changing to Biology would basically mean starting over.

"Biology," and even more so "biomedical research," is long past being the cutting up of frogs. Some branches are highly technical in an equipment sense (e.g., any of the structural fields), often with labs building and developing their own specialized equipment. A person with a solid grounding in electrical engineering would be welcome in many labs. In general, people with cross-field training are quite sought after. You will need to apply yourself to pick up the biology, but it will probably pay off in the long run.

Help I think I've been plagiarised in a phd So this is specifically related to referencing/crediting/plagiarism, I'd love your advice/opinion. A few years back I was an undergrad engineering student writing my final year thesis. My tutor professor was kind of an asshole but the subject was cool so I tried to manage it. It's a discussion for a different time. Anyway when I saw him at graduation he mentioned that one of his PhD students, who I knew and who had assisted me a bit with some apparatus, was potentially going to use my data and I might get credited in a journal when/if it was published. It was all framed as unlikely and he said if my work was used id be notified automatically. Anyway that was 3 years ago, and I was ruminating on how that professor shafted me on that project/degree and how the only good thing to come out of it was a thesis I was very proud of. I remembered the discussion re the PhD student, and had a Google to see what if anything he ever published. So I found his thesis, and to be blunt, he was using some of my work, and gave no credit or reference. It's a 300 page PhD so I didn't check it all, but the item I found is a photo I took using an electron microscope. It's of some samples I had prepared, and processed in a very specific way, and it's a distinctive image, there is no doubt that's my sample, I remember being like "fuck yes I nailed this one". He describes it like "fig x, typical example of sample processed in x way", and lists it similarly in the table of figures, which also contains author credits for many of the other figures, and it is implied that the figures he doesn't credit are his own. Now as mentioned these guys kinda screwed me once already, and I know for a fact that they wouldn't hesitate to shaft me if they caught me stealing work. Plus on top of that it feels shit man, it's my work and it's been published as somebody else's. Plus it's basically against one of the core tennets of modern science. I am not happy. So I guess my question is what now? Do I have any grounds for recourse? My thesis was never published, but it exists, in my and the universities records, and it clearly contains that image, and it clearly predates the PhD by ages. They could have easily just credited me and notified me, and I would have been fucking pumped, but instead this deceptive shit, plus they could have used one of their own images to illustrate a typical example of that process, but they used mine, because its an excellent image, because I worked my ass off to make sure it was.

Using a single image without attribution in a PhD dissertation is not a terrible offense, especially if—as it sounds like—the data is the property of the lab. If you can prove that it is in fact the same photo and can without doubt be sure that the image in question is not considered the property of the lab (as data produced in the lab with lab equipment typically would be) rather than yours, then pursue it. But fair warning, it's easy enough to say, "Oops, forgot the attribution on that one," and go on with life.

Taken a leave of absence (LOA) from my PhD and I think I’ve made a mistake.. (Very Long post, sorry!) I’ll start by saying I’m from the UK, and this is in the UK. Back in October 2020, I started a PhD in synthetic chemistry at one of the top universities in the UK, and pretty much from the get go, it’s been turbulent. I joined during a pandemic, so I couldn’t get out much, or meet anyone, so I already felt quite alone. In regards to the PhD, it became very apparent to me that my laboratory skills were lacking. I did achieve a first class honours MChem at my last university, but it was a rather rubbish department with an awful syllabus, so my practical skills were not up to the same standard as anyone else, so I had no confidence and I felt clueless. I would feel quite crappy every day when I got home, and this meant that I did no literature reading, or general theory reading outside of the lab. My supervisor is good, he’s supportive and approachable, but there were times he would get a little exasperated if I didn’t understand something/had a list of failed reactions. In February 2021, I had to take two months off on sick for an unrelated issue, and when I came back in April, everything has gotten worse. I’m mentally better, but I am physically exhausted all day every day, despite not overworking myself at all. I barely did a 5 day week, and no amount of sleep or rest made me feel refreshed.. on top of this, i was falling behind with a big report I had to write for my progression meeting, and almost a year in, I still haven’t read any relevant literature or general organic chemistry. So I decided to take a LOA for 6 months to figure out if there is something medically wrong with me, await my ADHD assessment (that’s another whole big thing that may explain it all), and generally catch up. Although this sounds like a good plan, I’m panicking now I’ve done this because a) I have to move hundreds of miles home due to LOA stopping your finances, so I lose the room I’m renting, b) with all the interruptions, I feel like my first year is an absolute dogs dinner, so if I return, how do I fix this? c) I’m not entirely happy with the project or city I’m in (think it’s under stimulating and boring), but I really DO want a PhD and I would be a fool to drop out/make a mess of this… I have no idea what to do, and maybe this LOA isn’t a good idea.

PhD experiences vary heavily across disciplines, countries, research topics, and workload. Regardless, starting a PhD during the pandemic is an immense challenge. Doesn't matter who you are or what ailments you may be experiencing. In addition to all the challenges, if you aren't entirely happy with the project or city, consider this your free pass to walk away. This is your life. You can walk away and start again whenever you feel ready. Anyone who criticizes you for quitting during a pandemic or for any of those reasons is a heartless prick. Find the lessons you learned during this tumultuous time, take a break from agonizing over it, and if you find that you still want to continue with a PhD, your supervisor will understand. If they don't, find a new one with a more exciting project. You'll be that much further ahead with what you've learned in the last year. Chin up, you got this!

As a PhD student just started teaching, how should I prepare good powerpoint for my sessions? Hi guys! Hope you are all well. So the title of this post generally summed up my question. And thank you in advance for any advice. In short, while preparing for my first lecture (which is next week) these days, I got really confused about how to present my lecture content to students in a good way: I found it difficult to make my lecture powerpoint more lively, engaging and interesting, and not just putting walls of words in all of the slides. I will be teaching art history and film studies - both are humanity subjects which requires loads of texts in their discussions and nothing much more, apart from clips and screenshots of films or photos of artworks and artists. For me personally, this has made it very hard for me to think about more engaging ways of doing my powerpoint. Besides, I personally do not have much previous teaching experiences. Meanwhile, the way lecturers from my MA study teach these subjects cannot give much inspirations for me. They tend to just read from their slides, instead of using it as to assist and elaborate lecture contents... So I do not really have anyone to learn from.

History grad student here with a few years of teaching experience under my belt. Consider not putting any text on the slides at all. My method is to use PowerPoint basically as a visual guide. My lecturing style tends to be what I call conversational. I talk to my students as if we were sitting around having coffee. I go through my points, but I also try to frame them as questions, ask for their opinions, then use those to jump off into providing the facts for the lectures. I use PowerPoint mostly to provide context. I love using maps, so I tend to have lots of them. It’s also a great tool to throw up pictures of people in history. Some extremely factual information, like dates or places of birth, could maybe go on slides, like the caption to pictures, but beyond that, I try to avoid putting text up. I always operate under the presumption that my students have done the assigned readings. They’re welcome to do them *after* class if they decide, but the point is that the “text” they need to consult is in their possession already and can be looked up. So they don’t need me repeating it via screen notes or something. I’d say trust that your students are aware enough to take notes. Make sure you pace yourself so that you’re not speaking too rapidly or covering too much complex ground without giving them space and time to absorb that information and raise queries. But you don’t need to put the information on the PowerPoint to make it engaging.

Is it weird to email a professor/paper author about how they did something in their paper? Hi! So I'm studying this paper that works on a specific mathematical model, and I was curious about how they plotted it to compare it to real world data. As in, there are solvers out there, but there's also a solution in the paper (that I honestly don't understand very well tbh), but yeah, there could be more than one way to plot it, and since I'm not very experienced with this, I wanted to ask the author how they did it, and for some general clarifications about the paper itself as well. Has anyone done this before? And do you actually get a reply? Or would the author get annoyed by simple-ish questions, and maybe not respond? (Obv, they're probably really busy anyway, so I wouldn't want to disturb them either :/) Any advice on how to email/speak to them in a way that would likely get me a response? :/

Yes, it's totally fine. You will either get a response or, at worst, be ignored. In most cases, they will be glad that someone is noticing their work. Check for an up-to-date email rather than the one given in the manuscript, as people move between institutions and their old email may no longer be monitored or active.

Bringing family to reception at a conference? I am attending a conference next month and my grandparents will be in the same city. My school is putting on an ‘alumni and friends’ reception at a beautiful venue in honor of the conference. I told my grandparents about it and they would like to attend with me. They have helped support me in my graduate school education and mean a lot to me so it would be hard to tell them no. Do you think anyone have a problem with this?

I would ask the organizers of the alumni event if you can bring guests or not. Sometimes those events require registration fees to cover food and drinks, and in most cases, you can register a guest as well. If it's held at the same venue as the conference, you might want to ask those organizers too. I've been to conferences where they rigorously checked ID badges when entering the venue, and you wouldn't be able to bring in anyone who wasn't registered. So definitely check with the appropriate people. It would be a shame to show up with your grandparents and find out they can't enter the event.

Has anyone been to a "predatory conference"? I'm constantly getting spam to present at the Veterinarysummit-2015 conference put on by the infamous OMICS group. The emails are so poorly written it's comical. Out of morbid curiosity: do these conferences actually happen or is it 100% a scam to profit off of registration fees? If you've been--why did you go and what was the conference like?

"Conference Attendee to Omics: I Want Out" Ouch! My head hurts. It's not just from staring at slides all day. It's from the sheer overwhelming amount of information I've been bombarded with. I came to this genomics conference with high hopes. I wanted to learn about the latest discoveries, network with experts, and maybe even get inspired to pursue a new research direction. Instead, I've been trapped in a whirlwind of acronyms, jargon, and overly complex data analysis techniques. I'm drowning in a sea of "-omics," and I'm starting to feel like I've been dropped into a foreign country where I don't speak the language. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the importance of genomics research. It's a fascinating field with the potential to revolutionize healthcare and our understanding of life itself. But sometimes, I feel like the field has become so specialized and technical that it's lost touch with its broader implications. I yearn for a simpler time, when scientists could communicate their findings in a way that was accessible to everyone. I miss the days when a researcher could explain their work in a way that wasn't peppered with obscure acronyms and technical jargon. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I think it's time for genomics to come down from its ivory tower and engage with the wider world. I want to understand the big picture, the implications of these discoveries for society, and how they can be used to improve people's lives. Until then, I think I'll take a break from the "-omics" and go for a walk in the park.

How do you keep your motivation & energy levels up as a PhD student? What keeps you going? Quick backstory: I'm a first year PhD student in STEM, and have just joined a new (and very successful) lab after a semester of rotations. My first semester was by no means exhausting, but I came into this program with burnout, and have had no time to recover. I earned my B.S. and M.S. while working full-time, worked overnights in a factory on breaks to support myself.... now that I'm actually here in a PhD program, I feel like I have little left to give in terms of effort. So what keeps your energy levels up? What motivates you to pursue a degree or career that requires so much hard work? I used to always set achievable short-term goals, but I feel like my PhD program (like many others) is really about accomplishing things in the long term. I'd be interested to know what works (or what hasn't worked) for any of my fellow grad students. Thanks!

I'm also a first-year PhD student with a B.S. and M.S. with no break in between. I've viewed a PhD as a culmination of medium-term goals (complete your courses, pass your QEs, publish, write a dissertation) that can be further broken down into shorter goals (study, read, lab work, write). To accomplish those short-term goals, I reserve about 9 hours/day during the weekday for on-campus work; once I leave for the day, I do not think about my work so I don't experience burnout. On weekends, I keep Saturday for hobbies while Sunday is for chores, shopping, and some light, at-home coursework/research. So, instead of motivating myself to work, I have disciplined myself to work. Keeping a consistent schedule helps me maintain a disciplined, consistent workload without experiencing burnout. The key is to do extra work (the work without due dates) when you have free time on campus. Sure, on rare occasions, I have to work more than my allotted time, but that's okay; I still reward myself after accomplishing those tasks. Hope this helped.

School or career? I was accepted to a fully funded MA to PhD in anthropology, then got a promotion at work Last year I applied for a fully funded MA & PhD in environmental anthropology starting in autumn 22, thinking it was a long shot. But I poured my heart and soul into my research proposal and got the scholarship! With living stipend! Then I was promoted at my tech startup job. It's a great career path and, considering that I just had my first child last year, couldn't be at a better time. (For reference, my husband has been a stay at home dad for the most part.) But it's still a startup and, if I'm honest, that makes me nervous. Many voices are telling me that I'd be stupid to leave a solid career for school. But I'm genuinely heartbroken at the thought of withdrawing from the PhD program. My research project is focused on the anthropology of climate change, which is something I care deeply about. I doubt another chance at a free degree in something I love is going to happen again. I know I'm fortunate to be in a position with two good choices. But I feel frozen with dread. I can't sleep! What would or did you do to be confident in your choice? Is anthropology as silly a thing to pursue as the naysayers say? Is only STEM worth it anymore?

Defer for a year on the PhD program. Then, if you still want to go back to school or if the job isn't what you envisioned, you now have another year of work experience at a better title. Also, you don't have to worry about papers while the baby is figuring out sleep schedules and the like.

Have you ever cried in front of your advisor or supervisor? If so, why? How did they receive it?

Yes. I was treated very badly by another professor on my committee during a meeting to discuss some of my work. My advisor was lovely and very supportive; she told me that it was okay to cry in front of her and gave me a hug. She was also very supportive as I moved on (I removed the other professor from my committee). However, a friend of mine cried in front of her advisor, and the advisor got angry and told her that she should never cry in front of anyone. Is it unfair to note that this was the same person who was so nasty to me? So, mixed bag?

Foreign postdoc, difficulty with PI, not sure what to do next TL;DR: PI aggressive, yells at me, hits tables, other, worried to go to HR or her boss, as I depend on this job for my visa. Have tried several different ways of dealing with her directly, always ends with her raising her voice, interrupting me, and sometimes calling me names. I have heard that this power dynamic happens sometimes, are there things that I can do? I am not trying to be vague, I am wanting to be careful about the information that I put out into the world right now. Please let me know if I have left out important information that might help answer my question, and I will try to answer it. Thank you. I will not add too much to my TL;DR. She becomes aggressive with me quickly, raising her voice, hitting the table, she sometimes calls me names or tells me to tell the truth, suggesting that I'm lying to her. I have a history where I am very much not ok with being yelled at like this or with people hitting things or behaving aggressively around me. I have told her this and she continues and says that I'm being dramatic. I have tried to solve the issue by talking with her many times, and then by email so that I would have a record of the conversations and so that she would not interrupt me or be able to yell at me so easily. She has responded to this by telling me that I am causing problems, and telling me that we'll talk about it in person, where she starts to get aggressive with me again. I am not perfect. I realize that I have my difficulties working with other people sometimes too, but never like this, and I can usually fix the problem by talking with the person and trying to understand where they are coming from and what they want. This is not working with this person. I don't want to create any problems, and I don't want to lose my visa, I just want to survive this time with this person, and hopefully not lose my career with her bad recommendation. Does anyone have any advice or has faced a situation like this? Does any part of this sound like a cultural difference that I am not understanding? My PI is also a foreigner. Please ask any questions, I will try to answers. She has never physically touched me when she was acting aggressively like this except to move me out of her way a little one time. She has not called me terrible names, but ones that I think do not fit my behavior and are maybe not appropriate for the workplace. I do not know her boss well, but they are very close and I worry about bringing this to her. Thank you very much. EDIT: I am working as a postdoc at a large, private research university

I am really sorry you are going through this situation. My advice would be to start searching for jobs aggressively; this is not sustainable for your mental health and, less importantly, your productivity.

Why did you choose the academic career? What was your dream and have you reached it? What would you say to your younger self that is going to start the bachelor's degree in few months?

I chose an academic career because I loved college and wanted to do what I thought my professors did: read books, teach, work with interesting people, write—basically, live "the life of the mind." As it turns out, I had a pretty naive idea of what academia was all about then, but it's close enough that I can say I love my job about 75% of the time. I ended up a tenured full professor in a school very much like the one I attended in the 1980s. Advice? I'd say, "Don't do it!" There was so much luck involved in my career working out 25+ years ago, and it would be impossible to duplicate in today's market. But even with a time machine, I'd say "Don't!" because it took a decade of grad school (three degrees) to get to the point I could compete for a tenure-track job—so I was 30 before I had one. Now in my 50s, I'm wishing I had worked through my 20s so I could be planning my retirement like many of my friends who started careers right out of college, rather than thinking, "Shit, I'll have to work until I'm 65 or 70 before I can afford to retire," while the magic of compounding interest and market growth has many of my classmates looking forward to retiring at 55. I'd tell myself, "Go to law school." I could have been well into a career by 25. If one of my kids asked me about pursuing an academic career today, I'd do anything I could to convince them to look in other directions.

What impact does it have on my chances of getting a PhD if something I'm working on gets published first? I've spent the last 6 months combining a novel neural network architecture with computer vision as part of my computer vision PhD project. (I have no CS background a lot of this time has been spent learning how to do software engineering properly) and the other week I saw a publication that had the same idea as me and had implemented it and it seems like it may end up being high impact. The implementation also smashed a bunch of benchmarks which I myself had recently achieved with my own work. Does this mean my work no longer counts? I'm pretty bummed out about this and I'm concerned it means I've wasted a significant chunk on my PhD doing work that won't help me even if it was publishable. While I understand the publishability of my work has gone down to independant reviewers / viva givers give you credit for coming up with a good idea just slightly too late like this?

Not going to answer your question directly, but if you had a research idea dreamt up and implemented in 6 months, had to learn the skills to get it done, and had it validated by other researchers who were already experts in the field, you're going to have more ideas and you're going to be just fine. Ask your PI about strategies for making the best of what you've already finished, and don't let the bummerness of getting scooped slow you down.

I recently joined a predatory publishing group unknowingly, how do I stay true to my values while still working there? I started a new job, which I didn't know was a backend for a predatory publishing group. I have very less options to work elsewhere since I have very less experience and a gap in employment during covid which happened when my parents got unwell. I really want to stay true to my values but it is hurting me a lot inside. What do I do?

Bear in mind that this publisher is probably flagged as predatory by other publishers, and this may impact your chances of finding work at legitimate publishers if they hold that against you when you try to apply. I would start looking for other jobs ASAP. Right now, you can explain at an interview when asked, “I didn’t realize this journal had these practices until beginning work and now am looking to transition out as soon as possible because I don’t agree with them.” The longer you wait, the less that explanation will hold and might be considered complicit instead. Edit: To add to this, if you find another job in a reasonable time, scrub the predatory publisher from your CV. A slightly longer gap in employment won’t seem weird (explain it as looking after someone with COVID), especially if you have a decent amount of time at a legitimate one, but it’s going to be a hassle explaining working at a predatory publisher for the rest of your career.

Average grade in Ph.D. from Germany and took long. Can I get a post doc in the US or Canada? I did a Ph.D. in an interdisciplinary social science subject in Germany. Funding ended in 2012, and since then I have struggled with odd jobs and no support from my supervisors. This year, I completed my Ph.D. and will defend in January. My supervisors who insisted I give in my first draft as the final has now given me the second-to-lowest grade in Germany, cum Laude (There is rite, cum laude, magna cum laude, summa cum laude.) In Germany, usually for post-doc work, you need a Magna. I come from a very poor Third World country and my family depends on me. I need to find a job that requires a Ph.D. and usually, people get a Magna and go on to do post-doctoral work which gives them permanent residence. This option is now very unlikely for me. I cannot return home empty-handed either. If I apply for a post-doc outside Germany would (a) the long time I took to finish work against me? (b) would the grade work against me? (c) I can ask for recommendation letters, but the fact that I took so long and got an average grade remains. The work is good (multiple other readers who I gave it to read said so and I was very surprised that they gave me the cum laude, especially after they had refused to comment or read it). I have published articles though from 2012. How likely is it that I can find a postdoc in Canada or the US?

I don't see a future in academia for you with that long of a PhD, neither in Germany nor outside. Luckily, academic jobs are not the only way to succeed and support your family. Accept that academia is not for you and start looking for employment that makes use of the skills you learned in your PhD. Drop the self-limiting notion that only staying in academia means success; you can find better-paid jobs outside of universities that will—quite frankly—exploit you less as well.

How do university grades work in the US? Does GPA apply to university? I have noticed that quite a substantial portion of university students in the US seemingly manage to graduate with a GPA of 4.0, which, in my understanding, translates to them having achieved the highest possible grade in all of their courses. Where I am from, achieving a seemingly equivalent feat (highest possible grade in all courses, including thesis, doctoral viva, ...) translates to the President attending your graduation and personally congratulating you. Only about 0.04% of all students manage to achieve this. So, my question is how does this make sense? Does this have something to do with the distinction of "college" and "university" in the US? Is this just a case of Grade inflation being much worse in the US than in Europe? Is it possible to "fix" your GPA if you have not achieved the highest possible grade in some exam?

There are ~4,500 colleges and universities in the US, so no answer is going to capture reality at even most of them. That said, grade inflation is a huge problem everywhere. As a professor for 25+ years now, I've seen it happen at every school where I've taught. At the place I've been for the last 20 years, even the grades in my own classes have risen from an average of about 80% (a B- on the American scale) to about 85% over 20 years. That's due in part, though, to evolving teaching practices—we've adopted new/different pedagogies that include things like multiple drafts of papers, assignments that are scaffolded (done in stages) so the end result is better, more group work, fewer exams/quizzes, etc. Those practices alone are probably responsible for most of the inflation in my classes because even using the same rubrics, the final work is now often better than it was 15-20 years ago. The other reality, of course, is that with 4,500 schools, there are vast differences in missions, the populations served, rigor, and expectations. It's absolutely true that there are some "elite" or highly-regarded schools where many programs are taught at an extremely high level of rigor and are so selective that only the best students get in at all, so the results are logically going to skew upward. There are also schools with open admissions policies (anyone can attend) that are pushed to produce degrees, making it very hard to fail. In between, there's a massive range as well. But the idea that even a majority of US students earn 4.0 GPAs is pretty far off the mark. The data isn't easy to find, but here's one example showing the average creeping up to around 3.3, which is a solid B. At my own school, which is moderately selective, it's a bit higher than that but still well below 3.5. Each year we graduate a tiny handful of 4.0 students, usually in the low single digits, and sometimes none at all.

When applying to a postdoc, can I provide a list of referees instead of cover letters? To summarize, today I found out about a postdoc position that will finish in less than 48 hours. There is no way for even my advisor to provide me a cover letter, as he is on vacation overseas. I have a close work relationship with two other professors, but honestly I think I'd be a dick by asking them for a letter to be written until tomorrow. Would it be rude of me to explain in a document file that I do not have cover letters available at hand, but then list the name, contact information and my relationship with these 3 individuals, and that they may provide a reference upon request? P.S.: This is actually my first time seeing a positing asking me, the applicant, to send the letters. The others I've applied to all asked me to list name, contact information and relationship of 2 or 3 people.

I'm a bit confused. Typically, you would write a cover letter yourself—it's your explanation of why you want the job and why you'd be good at it. Your references would provide references or letters of recommendation. I've never heard of someone writing your cover letter for you.

In Canada (or US), can we decide to go for PhD (or something of that sort) and JUST choose to teach (no research or anything)? Would that even get you tenure or a position at an university?

At U of T, we have teaching stream and tenure-track professors. Tenure professors are 30% teaching and 60% research, or something like that, while teaching stream professors are 70-90% teaching, or something. Teaching stream professors have the option to have a lab and do a small amount of research, but they don't have to, and many choose not to.

Why does it happen that researchers are generally paid less than engineering graduates who code or work with softwares, even though the former have more academic experience? Research scholars or researchers put in more hours and accumulate greater experience. However, when it comes to wages, they are paid very low when compared to computer science graduates straight out of college. Can you explain this asymmetry?

Despite what people like to think, nobody is paid based on how smart they are or how much work they put in. They are paid based on two things: - The amount of money they make for the person paying them. - The amount it costs to replace them (demand vs. supply). When academics produce very little that makes money, and are easily replaced due to the massive supply of other PhDs pining after academic jobs with no self-respect, willing to be paid the bare minimum to survive, they will be paid very little.

How are co-first authorships viewed in academia? If it's mentioned that both authors contributed equally, does the order of the authors' names matter at all?

My doctoral supervisor, who was pre-tenure (my first mistake), convinced me to list our names alphabetically on the primary article from my field study. Since my last name is at the end of the alphabet, this meant she was listed first. There was an asterisk added that said “Both authors contributed equally to this paper.” The result is that my dissertation research is forever cited with her name first. That publication helped get her tenure.

what are the major differences between R1 and R2 institutions? What are people's experiences in these situations and how do you like your job?

R2s that want to become R1s—without spending significant extra cash for support (admin, time, resources, extra people)—are hellholes filled with delusional admins that grind their pre-tenure faculty to dust and embitter the senior faculty that didn't get lucky with a big grant. They are among the *worst* places to work in academia.

What are the limits of ethics using AI to write a manuscript Short history: Can I use ChatGPT to rewrite one or a couple of paragraphs to resolve reviewers' comments? Am I cheating? I just discovered the ChatGPT3 from OpenAI and I'm in love. It has helped me a lot to overcome a creative block I was facing to finish a manuscript from my PhD where 2 of 3 coauthors (the 2 advisors) are quite absent, and for this reason, I stopped working on this manuscript for 1.5 years. Every time I tried to take it back I felt anxious and blocked. However, I'm currently passing a great moment of my life that brings me back to the joying of scientific writing, especially a couple of high-impact manuscript acceptance this last month. Thus, using the ChatGPT I got the draft of two paragraphs that helped a lot to move fast with this manuscript. Because I'm deeply editing these two paragraphs I think there are no ethical concerns about it. However, today I ask the ChatGPT to rewrite the paragraph of the objectives in another manuscript that received a minor review. The major concern is the lack of clarity in the objectives. Thus, I just asked to the ChatGPT rewrite this in a clearer manner and nail it. The paragraph is amazing now and I'm planning to use it directly as it is in the manuscript to send back to the journal. My question however is if I'm pushing the ethical line far from the gray area and if I can be punished in the future for this approach. Please note that I'm talking about a couple of paragraphs (300 words maximum).

I personally think it sounds problematic. There's a larger problem at hand if you're turning to ChatGPT to rewrite 300-word sections for clarity. At the end of the day, it isn't your work, so you'd need to reference/cite it. Even then, as a reviewer, I'd be concerned about the rest of the document. Good luck!

My whole class is making a complaint about one of our professors and I don't know if I should join I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post about my issue but I think it's kind of relevant to academia. So I'm doing my masters now and in my department there's this professor who is very rude and verbally abusive to almost everyone. Trust me, although he's an established scholar, his mouth is ten times worse than Gordon Ramsay! As far as I know none of the students (both masters and PhDs) don't like him, and almost all the other teachers in my department don't have any good interpersonal relationship with him either. But I still need to say that he's really old in age and famous in our field: in general, he's a good scholar, but not a good teacher at all. So after a long time some of my classmates decided that this professor's foul behavior can't be tolerated anymore. They gathered all of us one day, and asked if everyone agrees that we should make an official complaint to the university about him. And surprisingly and also unsurprisingly, everyone was supportive about this decision (we don't have a big class size so don't be surprised). I am supportive myself as well. Besides, I have also been a victim of the professor's abuse and rudeness multiple times. And the experience, I must say, is totally horrible and can scar you for a very long time. However, I am also unsure about really make it serious here because I am looking to go on applying for a PhD. This professor is not only the controller of our GPA (although my classmates also hinted that we can sue him on being academic corrupt if he really do something to our grades), but also a powerful referee that can be very helpful in my future PhD application. Besides, I'm from a very mediocre family in a small east Europe country and my family spent a huge fortune to send me abroad. Therefore my parents often say I need to avoid any trouble... This is also a reason why I am so hesitant on getting myself into this. Now my family knows that my overall grade is good, I want to go for a PhD and will have a future in the academia if I work hard on that, so I'm also afraid that getting myself involved will make them very worried, and have negative influence on my own future. What do you think of this? Do you think I should be more brave, or do you think I should keep myself out of this? Thanks.

I worked with a professor early in my career who was like this (it might even be the same person, who knows). The one thing I realized was that no one respected him as a person, even if his work was good or interesting. A recommendation letter from that type of person is mostly meaningless. They usually don't care enough to personalize it, and the recipients either sympathize that you had to put up with him, or assume you're similar and discount your ability to be a normal, feeling human being. Do not get recommendations from him if you can avoid it. You don't have to complain if you feel weird about it, but don't do it thinking he'll remember your kindness and pay it forward (because these types don't really care about you as a person).

PhD culture: US vs Europe in work/life balance, work hours, and jobs. What are the main differences? I saw some people mentioning that PhD students are considered workers in Europe. As such, they get much better work/life balance expectations. I wanted a few more data points to know if this is indeed a trend.

I would say this is generally true: PhD students are salaried employees who, in most European countries, are paid for a full-time job with full benefits and are not expected to work more than regular hours. Personally, I very rarely crossed the 40-hour threshold. Note that in most European countries, a master's degree is needed before admission to a PhD program. The PhD itself is then focused almost entirely on research, not courses.

Are PhD students and Academics allowed to operate a startup on the side in their free time? Is it even possible given the work hours? I was wondering whether its allowed and possible for PhD students and lecturers to work on a startup (eg a regular startup or an invention startup or a research startup) on the side. By allowed, I mean whether academic institutions allow it and if not what will be the consequences if you are caught. For possibility, I mean whether one has the time and energy (after necessities like commute, work, chores etc) to work on a startup business on the side. Please answer for both PhD students as well as Lecturers (the first rung on the academic career)

My PhD program had a rule that we were only allowed to work 10 hours a month outside of our department. They basically said, "We pay you a pile of money, and expect you to work." Nobody listened except those with the largest national grants (who didn't care anyway). As long as you're not ostentatious about these sorts of things, they can be broken. The reality is that if your business takes off, the academic misconduct won't matter, and if it doesn't, nobody will notice. Just don't make it an issue with your supervisor, and don't let it affect your work with anyone in the department. If you're quiet and take reasonable precautions, it won't matter. But be careful with IP. You may well end up not owning it. Most research universities have incubators now, but I'm wary of sending students there. They generally want a slice, like everyone else.

Serious question: why does anyone do a PhD? It seems like I only seem to read posts on bad experiences while doing a PhD. (Relying on 1 advisor the whole time, they may be toxic, etc.) Not only that, but it seems like job security is ass even after completing a PhD with no promise whatsoever of a higher paying job or even job security. I’m not trying to offend anyone, just genuinely curious. Is it only because some jobs require a PhD?

I think the majority of your question has been answered, but I would also like to remind you that you have a biased sample here on Reddit. The people who are really happy with their PhD programs aren’t here complaining about them. On Reddit, you are going to have a large biased sample of people who are having issues. Getting my PhD was some of the happiest years of my life. I had a small scholarship that allowed me to live modestly, a good advisor, great friends, and loved every minute of graduate school. The journey was just as good for me as the destination.

How hard is it to attain a tenure track position as a social sciences or humanities professor at a R1 university in a major city? What hoops do you need to jump through to maximize your chances? I'm especially interested in specific "hoops" you'd need to jump through to attain this, how early you need to start jumping through said hoops, and the amount of chance involved even if you did everything right. I'm debating whether it's worth going through with trying to become a social science or humanities professor or pursue a different field.

Well, hoops vary with discipline, and you can probably look at the CVs of recent hires. But generally: 1. You need to be very successful at a very prestigious university (this varies with field, but think Harvard/MIT). 2. Ideally, you will work with the most famous person in your field. I'm in STEM, so a National Academy of Engineers type person. 3. You will need to demonstrate productivity (papers, book chapters, conferences). The more the better. 4. You will need to have demonstrated teaching experience (TA, Instructor of Record, created your own curriculum). 5. You need to know people. Network, network, network. Friendly but not *too* friendly. 6. Luck. So much luck. Luck to be working in the right field at the right time. To get a good and supportive advisor. Avoid anything that could derail you (like family getting sick, you getting sick, WWIII). More luck. I'm sure folks will chime in with how I am wrong or with more suggestions. Also, this isn't necessarily to dissuade you; just to show that even if everything goes perfectly, it might not pan out. Or you might find out it's not for you. A PhD in Social Sciences has value beyond professorship. And if anyone doesn't end up an academic, they aren't a failure.

Transitioning (female to male) as a grad student (neuroscience, USA) I'm a trans man in a biomedical science (neuroscience) PhD program. I've socially transitioned and am out personally to my friends (but not family) and professionally in my grad school, in the sense that I am not hiding that I am trans, but did not broadcast it/make a big announcement to everyone when I came out. I'll be starting testosterone hormone therapy in April. Are there any trans academics here, especially in the sciences, who can share their experiences transitioning in academia? I'm lucky that my PI, labmates, and grad school friends are all supportive, but am concerned about how I will be treated in the broader scientific community if people find out I'm trans. I'm in my second year so am optimistic I will pass by the time I finish my PhD, but while in grad school I'll still be going to conferences and networking outside my immediate academic circle. I'm submitting a grant in the next couple of months. I can't change my legal name so my submissions/transcripts being under \[feminine birth name\] but me being referred to with male pronouns in letters will be a dead giveaway. How likely am I to be discriminated against? Academia is generally liberal, but I've heard from multiple PIs who've sat on study section that people can be petty for all sorts of reasons, and I don't want to paint a target on my back. Should I pretend to be a woman for the time being and have my letter writers refer to me as such just to be safe? In terms of publishing, I have a first author paper from undergrad under my birth name. I now go by my nickname which is a shortened version that's gender neutral (think Alexandra --> Alex), so my initials are the same.

You should read some articles by Ben Barres. He was a prominent neuroscientist at Stanford who transitioned early in his career. Unfortunately, he passed away a few years ago, but he wrote many articles on his experiences.

Professors: have you ever had a grad student advisee disclose mental health issues? How did you react? What changed (if at all) about the advising relationship? Did your opinion of them change (for better or worse)?

I opened up to my advisor about chronic depression in my fifth year and took a summer and fall off with his (and the department's) support. I wouldn't have finished if I hadn't. I hope my students feel comfortable coming to me, and I'll be sure to be proactive and advocate for the importance of mental health in grad school (and life in general).

I hear often about grad students basically being paid just enough in stipends to not starve and have a roof by the university, thus providing free labour for a given laboratory. Is this purely U.S based, or does it also apply to Denmark? I'm particularly interested in Denmark, as it has fairly strong laws regarding labour compensation.

Here are the salaries of PhD students at DTU (Technical University of Denmark); other universities would offer similar pay, possibly varying according to the local cost of living. The lowest wage, 26,755 DKK before taxes, would leave you with ~18,000 DKK after taxes (about €2,400 or US$2,800). (Edit: these are monthly wages.) According to The Economic Council of the Labour Movement (ECLM, Danish: Arbejderbevægelses Erhvervsråd, AE), a person with this income would be classified as middle class (source in Danish), although anyone who has completed tertiary education is automatically classified as higher middle class according to the ECLM. Living expenses vary across Denmark; in particular, rent can be quite high in some areas of Copenhagen or Aarhus, so a significant part of disposable income often goes to housing. Cheaper housing options are often available to grad students, though. Also, you wrote that Denmark has strong laws on labor compensation. In fact, salaries are generally determined by labor agreements rather than through legislation.

What's the difference between Journal Articles and Conference papers and how do these fit into one's research life? It's a very general question. Answer however you want

This is a field-specific question. Ask people in your field. In Computer Science, we publish our best work in conferences, which are extensively reviewed and hard to get into. Journals are also peer-reviewed, but not as important or as hard to get into as the top conferences in your field. Other fields are the opposite: journals are hard and preferred, and conferences are easy and not so great.

Chicken vs. egg: Writing a paper for a journal vs. finding the best journal for the article you wrote I suppose this is a question mostly for folks in fields with longer journal articles - perhaps social sciences and humanities? **When you write a paper, to what extent do you keep a specific target journal in mind?** Specifically, I do research in behavioral sciences, and I'm currently writing up a study of mine. Everything worked out really nicely, and the results are neat - so I have high hopes that I could get the (single-authored) manuscript into a specific journal that is decently highly regarded in my field, though not a crazy reach. The problem is: My papers tend to be on the long side, and this journal has a word count that is around 2/3 of my usual word count. It's not at all impossible to write this article at that length, but I'd only do it for this journal and would leave out many things I'd normally consider pretty relevant. Plus, most journals in my field have no word limit and would be fine with my usual article length (though obviously they'd accept something shorter too). So I'm wondering: What's your workflow? Do you write the article that you think does the study justice and fit it to a journal later? Or do you write an article for your first-choice journal, and amend it to other journals later (or hope that it'll fit the next journal too)?

I tend to decide about midway through the writing process (the study is completed, and I have created something a little less than a rough draft). That way, I can adapt to a specific set of requirements (primarily length) without having to undo a lot. Also, I might make sure to include at least one reference from that specific journal to signal that I know their work.

Attending my first in-person conference in two weeks, and my talk was placed in a session that is not applicable at all. It's too late to change, of course, but is this a common thing? What should I do? Fourth year PhD candidate here (yes, I'm really attending my first in-person conference as a 4th year, thanks COVID) in Biology/Ecology. In the United States. As the title states, my 15-minute talk for a conference was assigned to a session with a bunch of other talks that are in a different field. I don't want to be too specific to avoid identifying details on my account, but as an example, it's like my talk is on conservation of estuaries and the session I was placed in is titled "Mathematical approaches to predator-prey interactions". Not exactly it, but about that distance between topics. I looked at the other talk titles in the session, and they are all super relevant to this field while mine sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't think I can even change my planned talk to even remotely fit this topic, so trying to come up with something that would fit better in the session is not an option. I know I can't move to another session at this point (and that was never an option anyways, because at this conference you get assigned to a session by the conference organizers-- you don't get to choose). But from the people here who have attended a lot of conferences-- is this a normal thing, to be placed in a session that is super not related to your work? And is there anything I can do to make this... less embarrassing? I feel like I am going to get up there and people are going to think I got lost and went to the wrong session. If you saw a talk that was really out of place in a session, would you be embarrassed for the speaker? Should I just make a joke at the beginning about kinda being out of place, and then move on? I'm already really really REALLY nervous for this whole experience, so this problem is super not helping. Thanks for any thoughts you might have!

This happens on occasion, especially when the planner is trying to fit papers that have all been accepted into some sort of order. I’d just make a joke at the beginning that acknowledges that you recognize your paper was a strange fit on the panel (one of these things is not like the other). No one will see this as your fault and will hopefully seek ways to find commonality across the projects.

Found out my collaborator is under HR investigation - should I still work with them? I'm a graduate student in the US looking to collaborate with this PI (not my own or on my advising committee, but is in my department) who works in a similar scientific field on an experiment. We've been planning this experiment over the last few months and so far things have been going fine despite them being unresponsive to my emails. I just heard from my friend, a student that was considering joining this PI's lab last summer (but didn't), that this PI has been verbally abusive to their students (including my friend) in the past. They were reported to HR by past students but nothing was done. Quite recently though, the PI physically threatened a student in their lab, but the PI was thankfully restrained before any physical damage was done. This incident was also reported, and now HR is investigating the PI. This PI does not have tenure so it is possible they will be fired. Perhaps this explains why they've been so unresponsive... anyway, does anyone have any advice for what to do? 1. Should I continue working with this PI as though I haven't heard anything? 2. Should I look for other collaborators in case they get fired? 3. Will I be looked down upon by colleagues in our field if I publish something with this PI, especially if they get fired for this incident? Even if they don't get fired, I'm not excited about working with this PI anymore. I believe my friend and the other students she spoke to, and I don't wanna be attacked! Thank you all for any input!

Leaving aside the morality of working with someone who physically threatens his subordinates and abuses those he has power over, you cannot trust any of the work that comes out of this lab. People who work under extreme stress and fear of violence will be under enormous pressure to avoid antagonizing their abusers; their priority will be keeping the peace, and mistakes and undesirable results will unfortunately be covered up. Someone who thinks it's okay to scream at junior staff and get physical with students can't be trusted to have any academic integrity. Going back to the morality, while I doubt you'd be shunned for working with this guy because academia is far too appeasing when it comes to abusive behavior, you would be tacitly endorsing his behavior and potentially enabling him to continue his pattern of abuse. As a hypothetical, how would you feel if you later learned that he abused someone in his team over the work you agreed to do together? You're junior, and it's hard to have principles and make change when you don't have a position of authority, but there are times you can draw the line. Use this time to build the foundation of values that will mark out your career. One day you'll realize you've got twenty years of a career under your belt and maybe a team or even a department under you. There isn't a moment when you wake up and that's the day you're now important and have to act morally and manage and lead people with integrity. It sneaks up on you, so you have to start as you intend to be for the rest of your career. Always seek to be better and don't hide behind being junior or "everyone else doing it." Lastly, it sounds like this guy is going to be bogged down in investigations for a while, and unfortunately, universities are shit at this stuff. He could be out for months or even years. Just walk away and consider yourself lucky. Edited to add: OP doesn't specify gender.

What is the most petty thing in academia that you have done/had witnessed others do?

A professor counted the ceiling tiles in his office and another professor's office and demanded that his office be increased to the same size. Space was taken from the adjacent graduate student office.