Datasets:

qingy2024

/

reddit-69k

like 0

People who were grad students during the 2008 financial crisis, how badly did it affect you? I will be starting a PhD soon, so I just thought knowing an answer to this might be helpful should there be another recession coming. I believe academia might have been affected differently from the rest of the workforce.

I was just finishing my doctoral studies at that time. It was fucking brutal. Our endowment lost 75% of its value, and things were cut left and right. Suddenly, the $1200 that was earmarked for my summer conference travel was just gone. I had strong external funding, but some people were seriously hurt. Hiring fell off a cliff. Nobody in my field was hired for probably twenty-six months, and the job market has not recovered. It was a double-whammy because that's when mandatory retirement was killed off, and now lots of departments are clogged with the shambling corpses of 90-year-old white dudes with dementia pulling in the salary of ten adjuncts. It's really something.

"Do you also brew beer?" What's the most out-of-left-field question you received in a thesis defense? A committee member asked me in my Master's defense to confirm whether I brew beer (I did, and it was unrelated to my research), then I had them over a few months later to observe a brewing session. Not sure if the question was supposed to help me feel relaxed. Up until that point I had been grilled pretty hard and led to a conclusion that my work was meaningless. Still passed, though, so maybe the brewing saved me in the end!

What planet is most likely to become a star and why? My PhD was in biochemistry and molecular biology. My dissertation focused on proteins in macrophages in cardiovascular disease, not physics or astronomy.

The journal eLife is eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review. https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/54d63486/elife-s-new-model-changing-the-way-you-share-your-research > Since its inception, eLife’s mission has been to innovate and improve the way research is communicated. With the increasing popularity of preprints among the scientific community, including eLife authors, in 2021 we announced that we would only review articles that were available as preprints. > We are now excited to introduce our new publishing process. > From next year, we will no longer make accept/reject decisions at the end of the peer-review process; rather, all papers that have been peer-reviewed will be published on the eLife website as Reviewed Preprints, accompanied by an eLife assessment and public reviews. The authors will also be able to include a response to the assessment and reviews. > The decision on what to do next will then entirely be in the hands of the author; whether that’s to revise and resubmit, or to declare it as the final Version of Record. This is a crazy and revolutionary change. Thoughts?

The most interesting piece of this to my mind is that they're going to publish reviews. This seems like it might actually improve the review process—if they're publicly available, reviews might become more rigorous (and less petty, "why aren't you citing me specifically,"/rude—these are recurring problems in my field, anyway). Hard to say at this point whether it'll be a net good or not, but I'll be keeping an eye on it.

Money in academia and the future of academia There are a lot of posts in this sub (and of course, actual facts and figures), about the low pay that academics and graduate students get, or the high tuition fees (in some countries) that are required to pursue a course in an academic institution. There also seems to be a growing trend of universities hiring adjunct faculty or teaching (only) staff which are roles that come with considerably lower pay, benefits and stability, compared to what was on the table earlier. After the pandemic I have even read about some departments being killed. In contrast, I am also reading about how schools (in the US) are building water rides, or rivers inside their campuses. It is reasonably well known that the 'big' universities in the US (at least) have endowment funds that are basically privately managed hedge funds, so this money is not used to address any of the problems I have mentioned above but more or less just ends up with the administration. This is something that seems to have begun in my (Asian) country as well with a very well reputed (public) university setting up a similar fund. In light of these developments, where do you think academia is headed and what do you see as the future for people who want to pursue research or teach at an advanced level?

You're conflating the teaching and research missions of the university. For the teaching mission, all of what you said makes sense; the added value of a bachelor's degree from prestigious universities is enough that many of them will charge whatever they want. In the USA, the problem is worsened by our student loan system, which essentially allows anyone to take out loans to attend an accredited university. Good way to increase the percentage of the national population getting a college degree, bad way to suppress costs associated with enticing students with that federally backed loan money. You'll notice that I haven't talked about academic pay yet. Students are enticed by the water rides, lazy rivers, football programs, and "culture," almost none of which have to do with teaching. Given the glut of PhD graduates, that means universities can hire "teachers" on the cheap via adjunct lecturers or teaching faculty. This does not extend to academics that bring in money to the university via research money. Since universities get a slice of this pie, there is a competing incentive at universities to recruit and hire expensive superstar researchers (who may or may not correlate to superstar teachers). As an ancillary benefit, the research prowess of an institution is conflated with university prestige, which in turn helps bring in undergraduate students who may want something more than a lazy river. So, in the end, if you take each to their logical conclusions without any major changes to the market, you'll have two types of universities: 1. Universities that survive by raking in tuition and minimizing teaching costs. Which means a core set of faculty plus poorly paid adjuncts, otherwise. 2. A much smaller subset of universities that survive by raking in tuition and research monies while minimizing teaching costs. This is a riskier gambit, as an intensive research infrastructure is expensive, and it's thus harder to break into this subset of universities. I'm guessing that's what the future of American higher education will look like. Edit: As an aside, graduate student pay is low because there is a glut on the supply side. Too many students want to get PhDs, and universities will happily take advantage of that, sadly.

Advice: My TA got really bad (like horrible) evaluations- how do I tell her? I just got the evaluations from a course I taught this year. The course was made up of lectures and labs. I taught the lectures and both myself and my TA both (independently) ran our own labs. I never saw her teach because our labs were run at the same time. Anyway- she got horrible evaluations from students (many refused to answer the section)! Without going into too much detail, let's just say, they ripped her to shreds. I don't know how (or how much) to tell her. All her work with me was awesome, she helped me so much and was super professional and organized. Also, I think it is the first time she has been a classroom/lab leader. TL;DR : Would you have wanted to know the hard cold honest truth when from your first students ever? Or should I sugarcoat things to be nice?

I'd schedule a meeting and tell her all the positive things you have to say about how she helped you as a TA. Then let her know that the students gave her pretty unfavorable reviews and she should read through them so that she can better understand what is and isn't working with her student interactions. I think you need to give them all to her, no filtering. She's got to learn how to handle it, and better now than later. What kind of criticisms did they give her? Was she a bad facilitator? Did she give poor instructions or seem to not know what she was doing? Did she not return their work on time? Was she condescending? What was the problem exactly? You should be prepared to help her identify the consistencies and what you do to prevent that in your labs. Also, have a story about the worst evaluation you've ever received ready, so she knows she's not alone and this happens to all of us, but we can improve and move on.

How to include solicited but not-yet-published academic articles on a resume/cv? I've been solicited by two editors to write articles for two academic publications. The drafts aren't due yet and the articles will undergo peer review, but as I was specifically *asked* to write these, it's fairly certain that they will be published. How should this be listed on a resume/cv that will be submitted prior to the completion of the articles? Is "in preparation" accurate? Is "forthcoming" the right amount of vague? Thanks.

My take: Don't mention the work in a cover letter with enough detail that the reader gets a good feel for your engagement with the work you're doing. But readers and hiring committees can get really cynical about vaporware on CVs. And don't use "forthcoming." In preparation, okay, if you must. But "forthcoming" is usually interpreted as meaning the article is written, submitted, and accepted.

Reporting a roommate for harassment to the school? Tl;Dr: do universities/grad departments care about, I guess, cyber bullying? Would it be self-sabotage to even bring it up? I live off-campus with three other students from my PhD program, all 25+, US. One of them is a lunatic, and after refusing to show me any respect and calling me names from Aug-Oct, I blocked them from messaging me around Halloween. Then they were just a bully in the house chat, which I had hoped wouldn't happen, but whatever. I made sure to stay calm and respectful - I figured in a year we'd be signing a lease again, and if I just show the others that I'm trying to keep things civil, then I can use this rudeness to weasel myself into a nice setup. Not very cash money of me, sure, but whatever. Today was the last straw, and I left that chat too. Just fed up with everything getting twisted into a bash at me. So basically, I have 6+ months of messages of them being a lunatic and a bully, and I am 95% sure that anyone reading it would agree. I believe the other two roommates would corroborate that they are a bully who's had their sights on me since August as well, but I haven't asked. Stuff like: calling me stupid, lazy, arrogant, selfish, etc, saying I am going to fail my quals this summer, that I should go back where I came from to bumfuck nowhere, that my parents didn't raise me right, that my entire family is immoral etc etc. Just wildly disrespectful and unreasonable things to say, seriously. Most recently, they started texting lies and crap to my mom, trying to... I guess get my #1 fan to switch sides? Not a chance - she adores me. Stood up for me too, then forwarded me the texts. Would a university care about this? Would I be shooting myself in the foot to even bring it up? We are both less than halfway through a ~5 year degree. Honestly, I think they are a truly nasty, hateful person, and I don't know if I can spend another few months in a lease with them, let alone 2+ years in a department. I am starting to think that they are literally crazy. I'm wondering if I should get a nannycam, and if I have legal grounds for harassment yet. They're probably already slandering me to the department, and I am starting to fear that they might start destroying/stealing my stuff soon, if not worse. I want to get ahead of the wave here.

If I were in your shoes, I would ask for a personal meeting with my program coordinator (or similar person). I would tell them my concern that since this person contacted my family, they might also try to sabotage my standing in the program. I would emphasize that I don't need the program to *do* anything yet, except take it with a grain of salt if this person comes around saying unflattering things about me. I might tell my own supervisor something similar, again emphasizing that I don't need them to do anything except be skeptical of anything this person has to say about me. Then, I would move out.

This PI/Interviewers behavior struck me as odd and a bit rude. What do I make of it? Had an video call interview with a PI for a post-bacc research job in Psychology/Neuroscience. Some things that seemed a bit off to me: 1. My webcam was on, he left his webcam off. I was essentially talking to a black screen. 2. At the interview he mentioned "let's set up an interview for you with my current research coordinator". A few days later, I sent him a thank you email and brought this up and he said "let's postpone this for now". 3. He asked me what my parents' jobs are/what field they are employed in. 4. He asked me if I consider myself "emotionally stable and willing to work with extremely mentally ill patients". He also asked me if I ever experienced suicidal thoughts or know anyone close to me who died by suicide. I guess this might be reasonable question but I didn't feel like it was necessary to ask both questions (Are you emotionally stable, AND have you ever experienced suicidal thoughts". FYI, I will not be taking this job even if I do get a second interview.

#1 and #2 are perfectly appropriate. #3 is odd and out of line. #4 was in part a question about private medical/disability information. In my state, it is illegal to ask that while interviewing someone for a job.

What is the logic behind an unemployed PhD being "stale goods on the market"? Quite a few times now I've heard people say that you need to land a position within a year or two of receiving your PhD, because otherwise you become "stale goods on the market" and... your PhD is... worth nothing, I guess?... Can someone explain to me how this makes any sense at all? It seems like the most utterly childish thing.

Despite everything said below, you should also recognize that being unemployed this past year is more than understandable and should be easy enough to explain to employers in cover letters and interviews if necessary. Any employer who doesn't give latitude for the absolute insanity of the past year and a half would be very foolish. Quite apart from that, also don't forget to be kind to yourself. It's been a rough time; there is no shame in being unemployed for a while. It's difficult to get back in the market sometimes, but even after a while away, it's still possible. I know because I did it too after my PhD some years ago.

Me [24 M] with my professor [35 M], working for the past year, I'm getting screwed out of co-authorship This is really sensitive work, so I am being as vague as possible. I am a full time researcher at a major research university. Recently, the professor I work for obtained a new, never before seen data set. This data set is very groundbreaking and I have no doubt our analysis will make national news. I, and I alone, was assigned to work with this data set from the very start of the project. As a researcher, I produce all the statistical analysis. That means I do all the coding and produce the analytical output. This really is the bulk of all the work. Every figure, table, and description was produced from my code. I went into this project believing co-authorship on the paper was implied. After all, I probably put in about 600 hours to the professor's 200. Recently, over the phone, my professor made it sound like I wouldn't be getting co-authorship on this paper. He said we could do a more in depth analysis of the current data for the next project, and publish that together. It definitely sounded like that would be the consolation for not getting my name on this current paper, which should be submitted soon. I'm really bummed because I've grown very attached to this project and my work. I put in tons and tons of overtime even though I don't get paid for it, mainly because I expected to be a co-author, so I didn't mind. I really want to approach my professor but I don't know how. He could easily shut me down and there's nothing I can do about it. Authorship is a very sensitive area in academia. I also need a very good rec from him for grad school, so I don't want to put any strain on our relationship. What is the best way to go about approaching this? Note: When I say co-author, I really mean author, as in second/third author. I didn't conceptualize the project so of course I don't expect to be lead. tldr - I expected to be a coauthor on a paper I put in the majority of work for, but now it seems like I won't get that

I also need a very good recommendation from him for grad school, so I don't want to put any strain on our relationship. You're not even in grad school yet? I mean, I'm sorry, but you're just a regular hourly employee. Lots of times they get on the paper, but a lot of times they don't because there are simply too many other people involved who did more. Credit needs to go to people who did more planning, recording, and writing than those who just run stats. Sorry, but that's just kind of how it goes. I put in tons and tons of overtime even though I don't get paid for it, mainly because I expected to be a co-author, so I didn't mind. What made you think you were going to be a co-author? Did the professor say you would? As a researcher, I produce all the statistical analysis. That means I do all the coding and produce the analytical output. **This really is the bulk of all the work.** Every figure, table, and description was produced from my code. Are you sure? I mean, I hate stats and running SAS too, but c'mon, the bulk of the work? For every project in my field, SAS is one of the smaller parts. The biggest issue is actually designing the experiment, funding/purchasing, running the experiment, recording data, and writing. Stats takes a back seat to all of that. Your field may differ, but what if you've overestimated the importance of your work?

Why does a PhD in Britain only take 3 years compared to PhDs in America, which are longer?

My understanding is that a PhD program in the US is roughly equivalent to the combination of a master's program and a foreign PhD program (foreign, here, referring to countries that use that system, like Britain).

Do you find academic writing readable? HI! Academics write a lot -- papers, theses, grant proposals. How readable to you find them, generally (by readability I mean ease of finding and understanding the first time you read it)? Would you want papers to be more readable? Do you find it challenging to write in simple, clear language?

The quality varies. I often read an article and want the writer to be as concise as possible. I work in a clinical science field, and our journals generally have a 3,000–4,000-word limit. I force myself to write simple sentences. I encourage others in peer review, instruction, and seminars to be simple and direct. Some things drive me nuts while reading: 1. Overusing passive voice; 2. Writing sentences that are as long as a paragraph; 3. Adding entire rows or columns with exact *p*-values for every estimated parameter to tables; 4. Retaining tables and figures that could have been appendices. Help me read efficiently! :)

What would be the consequence if TT ends? https://www.wabe.org/georgia-board-of-regents-approves-changes-to-tenure/ Anyone here with direct knowledge of this?

Frankly, academic positions become even less attractive than industry positions. One of the last bulwarks against brain drain to industry was the oft-touted academic freedom and job security that comes with tenure. Even then, the industry-academia pay gap is wide enough in many subject areas to make industry a highly attractive option. In my field, especially, where industry options are plentiful, we lose many brilliant minds to industry because the pay is almost three times more. When you take away the possibility of tenure, more of the best and brightest will just go into industry. Big corps win again.

Why do PhD programs only give funding for 5 years but expect you to take more than 5 years to finish? I'm mainly talking about History. Most programs only give funding for 5 years, but when I look at their FAQs, they expect students to finish in 7 years. What happens if you can't finish in 5 years and your funding runs out? Why not structure the program so you can actually complete it in 5 years then (like lessening the required amount of courses).

Five years should get students to a point where they're just writing. If they haven't finished by then, they can find a job and continue writing until they're done. Or they can find alternative funding sources within the university or from external sources. There's also finite funding, and a department needs to be able to offer money to incoming students. After five years, a graduate student has drawn quite a lot of funding from their department. After that point, the odds of them finishing drop considerably for each additional year. So rather than throwing additional funding at students, it makes more sense to redirect that funding to attract and recruit new students and let the students nearing completion source other funding to finish. Those students should be applying for fellowships if they're not done. If after five years they're not able to compete for external funding, then those may be the students who are best cut loose anyway. > Why not structure the program so you can actually complete it in five years? (Like lessening the required number of courses). Because coursework isn't the hangup that keeps people from finishing in five years. What keeps people from finishing is mainly just the pace of their research and writing. **Edit:** Worth noting also that students may not necessarily come in receiving departmental funding, but may receive it a year or two into their program. When I did my PhD (anthropology), my first three years of funding came from outside my department because my advisor wanted me but was committed to funding a student who had come in before me. He helped me secure funding outside the program until three years in, when I started on my departmental funding. I had three years of departmental funding, and then one year of funding on my advisor's grant (gotten two years before I graduated) before I was done.

Tips for requesting co-authorship on an academic advisor's paper Hello, About two months before I was to submit my master's thesis my advisor sent me a paper he was working on getting published (already submitted and needing revisions). I found out that it was framed very similarly to my thesis and ran almost the exact same analysis. I believe I part of my research that was to be an original contribution got scooped up into that paper (on top of the theoretical framing I felt we were co-developing for my thesis). I successfully defended the research but need to do revisions on the written thesis and have essentially had to rewrite most of it so that it doesn't seem to be a complete rip off of that paper. I feel like they should have told me prior to two months before that my research overlapped too greatly, and at this point I feel at a loss for wrapping this up unless I cite that paper up and down. I would like to receive credit for that and am wondering if folks here think it is appropriate for me to ask for co-authorship on that publication at this point and any advice for how to go about that. Thanks !

1. You can ask to be an author if you provided original intellectual content to the paper. Authorship isn't conferred simply because you did the same work. 2. I don't see the need to "rewrite much of" your already-defended thesis. Just note as early as necessary in the thesis that similar work from the same group is in press. 3. This sounds like very poor judgment on your advisor's part to publish (independently of their student) the same work the student is doing. Since your success reflects on their own, at the very least, they're disrupting their own scholarship and career by scooping a mentee. You may wish to get advice from a trusted faculty member (e.g., someone on your committee) on how to proceed.

How to study for 12 hrs a day for 2 months straight without losing motivation? People who have done this before, Please help. I have this big exam in 2 months, already attempted this exam and failed 3 times. Next attempt will be my last attempt as I have to start a job and move out from my parents house. My exams are similar to CPA but of a different country.

When I studied and worked for 12 hours a day for a few months, I developed a chronic illness that screwed up my nervous system, and I’m still dealing with it today. So I do not recommend it. People who say they do this are lying.

Can you study a master/PhD and still keep your job in the industry? Hello, I'm an Electronic Engineer based in Colombia currently working as a Cloud Engineer for a great US company (they bought the company here). While I was still studying, I wanted to pursue a physics master due to my thesis being fluid dynamics and bc I loved researching. The thing is I wanted to study abroad at a prestigious university, but I'm not sure how much time would I have doing a master's/following PhD and still working bc I can't afford any of this without a job (to put it in perspective I earn 7x times the minimum wage here, which is a lot for a 22 y.o with 6 months of experience). Should I just give up and do a master's in my country since it would actually be more affordable and flexible depending on the university? (My main problem is the time/schedule and money I would need to study/live abroad)

Absolutely no way I could have done my PhD in Microbiology and had a job. It was easily 60 hours a week plus weekends, and that's after all the classwork was finished and I was just focused on the lab. In fact, I think we were prohibited from having outside employment as a condition of our stipend. By the way, most legitimate PhD programs (in the sciences, at least) should provide you with a stipend and tuition reimbursement.

The academic job market has dissuaded me from a Philosophy PhD. Are related fields (e.g. sociology, political science, social work) any better? Are my fields of study too niche, interdisciplinary, and out of demand to become a professor with job security? I have a BA in Philosophy and Economics from a mid-tier state school (but historically prominent in my research area) and an MA in Economics from a heterodox department where I wrote a thesis on anti-essentialist (*i.e.* poststructuralist) Marxism and working class struggle. My interests are in broadly in Marx, continental philosophy, economic justice, and alternative approaches to community development. Despite always dreaming of becoming a philosophy professor, conversations with mentors and others tell me that's a bad idea if I don't want to end up taking whatever job I can find at a tiny rural school. Not that there's anything wrong with that; just not what I'm trying to achieve. My dream is still to enter academia and to be able to teach with some degree of job security and autonomy regarding where my family chooses to live. Would a PhD in a related field be significantly better than pursuing a Philosophy PhD? Here's what I'm thinking... * Economics -- My interests don't fit into mainstream econ *at all,* so would I be able to study what I really want to outside of a heterodox department? * Social Work -- Seems to be the field dealing most directly with community development and economic justice (applications of my current research), but I know nothing about it otherwise. * Sociology -- Recommended by my advisor, but what's the job market really like for someone studying critical theory and community development? * Political Science -- Political theory is a natural fit for me, but again, hardly know anything about the field and job market. * Specialized programs -- like Rutgers-Camden's Public Affairs/Community Development or Vanderbilt's Community Research and Action. How useful are these for ending up in a more mainstream tenure-track position? How can I avoid the job market hell all my friends are going through?

Yep. All PhDs are likely a bad choice for the job market. Do a PhD because you want the knowledge and experience, not because you want to be a professor. The chances of that happening (if you don't go to a top-tier school) are vanishingly small.

Academics of Reddit, what do you wish you'd known at the beginning of grad-school? ... about grad-life, the academic universe and everything in-between?

I knew this one, but it's been painful to watch many people I know not get it: have a life outside of grad school. Have things you do that have nothing to do with your graduate topic. Make friends who also do that. At the end of the day, it makes coping with grad school easier because you can see that school isn't the end all and be all of life. My fiancé has struggled with this, and it's hard to watch him as his school friends graduate and leave.

Negotiating a job offer? Can I ask for higher pay or will that embarrass them? I received a job offer from a very small school in a cheap flyover state that would pay 40k after tax. The pay is laughably bad, lower than most high school teachers, but this was the only offer I could land so far and it may come down to this or unemployment. I have a couple post-docs that I will hear back from in about six weeks. I'm drafting my first response email to them now to thank them for the offer and let them know I will wait until I have all my options in front of me. Is it bad to ask if they are firm on their salary offer? Should I wait perhaps until I write them again next month or put this out there now?

Asking for a higher salary? Yes, that sounds reasonable. Asking for six weeks to decide after the offer was made? No, that's not reasonable. Except under extraordinary circumstances: they would really need to prefer you over other candidates for the position, and they would need to be doing the hiring process way ahead of time.

More perspectives wanted: Choosing postdocs and balancing a dual-career/two body problem **Background:** I am a new ST**E**M Ph.D. who is in a relationship with another new **S**TEM Ph.D., Partner (they/them/their pronouns). I defended this semester; Partner defended last. I am a mildly successful scientific researcher more known for my STEM education and diversity initiatives. My partner is an extremely successful early career researcher in their field who has successfully landed a great 2yr industry postdoc that fulfills all of their short term goals (professional development, supportive environment, indication of being able to stay on post-contract, a regular work schedule, etc.). I have a definite wish for a faculty-academic position whereas partner values stability and tentatively likes the industry environment so far (all of 1 week in), though definitely enjoys teaching. We're currently working on the assumption that after 2-4 years here (depending on how jobs work out) my career will take precedence, moving where needed for me to secure a faculty position as long as it's anywhere my partner could find a position in their rather flexible industry. Partner's job is in a geographical location where me finding a position is not difficult, but it may not necessarily be the absolute ideal. I am currently evaluating 3 types of positions and would appreciate it if any STEM faculty members could provide insight into what might make one type of position better on a CV (and for what type of institution) over another. Or if any of the positions would be definitely detrimental even if I followed-up with a second postdoc. And for those who have navigated the two-body problem, what your opinions are at all. **Position A:** A postdoc at the local R1 working for a PI in a field that is doing work I find mildly interesting, but would not necessarily fit my current research agenda. Opportunities posted now but also possibly open in the future as well. Distance from Partner: none **Position B:** A 1-year postdoc in an R1's Center for Teaching focused on STEM education and Teaching, which provides opportunities to be instructor of record on classes (not a current skillset) and do formal education research, which I attempted independently as a graduate student. Distance from Partner: 1hr commute, but able to live at "home." **Position C:** Absolute research "dream" postdoc directly in my field at an amazing institution. Fellowship is also limited to 1 year. Distance from Partner: 9hrs. Similar research-intensive positions are possible but also between 2.5-9hrs away and vary in reputation. Note: I'm my entire committee's, and advisor's, first Ph.D. graduate. In hindsight I would have chosen at least one person with experience to help me navigate this process but at the same time I would never replace their support and mentoring. Therefore I turn to you. You might hear from me frequently in the next month or two. **TL;DR: I am in a two-body relationship where my partner has secured an excellent position. I'm trying to figure out if any of the positions I am looking at will have unforeseen (or larger than foreseen) consequences on my hopeful career as a faculty member or my highly valued relationship.**

The problem with picking 1 or 2 is that in 2–4 years, when it's your turn to choose, your CV will be weaker, and your choices more limited. In theory, it sounds good to put your career on the back burner to support your partner and live with them. In practice, your CV will be compared to your peers who took the dream option 3 and have cutting-edge research, in line with their PhD research, publications, and recommendations from well-known professors to bolster their applications. And your partner will be up for promotion in his current position. Maybe you've bought a really nice house. And suddenly it's never really a good time for your career to take precedence. I say take option 3 because you already know that professionally, it is the best route.

What skills to develop during PhD? Hello everyone, What specific skills would you suggest develop during PhD? They could be technical or soft ones.

Learn R. Learn how to write a journal article for publication and get it published, including learning how citation politics work. Learn how to write and win grants. Learn how to avoid toxic people in your field and school. Learn to say “no.” Prioritize sleep and health above all else. Learn a hobby unrelated to your field of study.

PhDs of Reddit, what was your Doctoral Program like, and how did you choose it over others? I'm an MA student right now looking at getting my Doctorate Degree in History, so anyone specific to that would be most helpful, but in general, what were classes like? What was your dissertation like? Any other advice would be generally helpful. Regards

Unless you have some other means of support, do not get a PhD in the humanities. Seriously. You are almost certainly condemning yourself to a life of poverty, no job security, and no health insurance. This is *not* hyperbole. That said, I loved grad school. I had a great cohort and great faculty. Classes were cooperative and non-competitive. The dissertation process was painful but not horribly so. Now I’m an adjunct. It sucks.

Dealing with a toxic advisor as an undergrad So, I can't believe I have to actually write a post like this, but I need help. I'm an undergraduate working in a paid research position for a pre-tenure PI at a well-known private research university in the northeast US. I love the work I do, but the relationship I have with my boss/advisor is degrading to a point of complete nonfunctionality and I'm not sure what to do. Everyone in the group has long had issues with his management style - he micromanages and yet complains that you don't get anything done, tells you not to set up certain experiments and then complains at you for not doing what he told you to not do. He routinely texts us at 2AM to chastise us for little things we did wrong in lab. Perhaps the worst part of it all is the constant attack he exerts on our work ethic - he has complained to me I don't work hard enough when I hadn't slept in two days. Working in his lab more than I am technically able to by university regulation on top of a full course load in a demanding major and nothing I do is good enough for him. Today he texted me explaining that his expectations are that I work no less than 72 hours per week with the level of productivity that would be expected of a postdoc at a big-name group at an ivy-league university. I swear to god I am not making that up. I have the texts. Again, I am an undergrad. I love the science. I love what I do. I intend to go on to grad school, and I'll quite frankly need a letter of recommendation from him to get into a good one. But I am at my wit's end dealing with this dude. What do I do?

"No less than 72 hours" is ridiculous, even for a grad student who has no coursework (though people do it), let alone an undergrad with a full course load. I think it's time to let this position go. I know you might lose a chance at a letter, but frankly, if he's showing that he's never happy with anything you do, he's probably not going to write a very good letter, and it's not worth the stress he's putting you under. Try to leave peacefully as best as you can—I'm sure you can still use the experience from your research position in the future, too.

I'm 20 and finishing my bachelors degree this year, is it ok to get a second degree before going to masters I'm studying maths and I plan to get a masters in physics, but I wanna get a second degree in physics so I'm prepared for my masters, and plan to do investigation (in physics) eventually. My parents think I will be too old to pursue an investigation career if I get a second degree instead of starting my masters next year. If I do spend 3 more years getting a degree in physics will I be too old to pursue a PHD and investigation career?

Why a second degree, though? There are longer masters programs, supplementary courses, etc. I just don’t think I would be prepared for a masters next year. I understand that feeling, but just speak to graduate admissions people and your advisors; they’ve seen these things many, many times before.

My supervisor has gone a bit AWOL So I’m doing my honours thesis and it’s due within the month but my supervisor has sort of gone AWOL this past few weeks. He sent a message through two weeks ago and I just haven’t heard anything back since. I’m on my last chapter and I’m just anxious about the editing and if my last questions are any good etc. it’s just making me freak out a bit and I’m to much of an anxious person to go to anybody else - if There was anybody else. I suppose the upside is that I’m almost done, but I haven’t even done an overall conclusion and beginning yet and again - all the editing. I don’t even know if I should be adding my lit review to it as well. I need an adult ya’ll lol

He sent a message two weeks ago, and I haven’t heard anything back since. I mean, how many messages have you sent in two weeks? Surely you only meet them weekly anyway, so this should represent one or at most two missing responses. Maybe they just had a busy week. Maybe they had an unexpected family emergency. If you’ve been inundating them with emails and anxiety, maybe they’re just stepping back to see if you can solve some basic problems yourself. That’s an important skill to develop, after all. I haven’t even done an overall conclusion and beginning yet, and again—all the editing. I don’t even know if I should be adding my lit review to it. So get cracking. Instead of wasting time worrying about this, just *finish* it. You have tons of time—you’ve got weeks, and a conclusion and introduction can be finished off in a couple of days. As for what to include, you must have access to some kind of examples. Go look at them to see the typical structure used in your field/department/university.

Would it be inappropriate to give my professor/mentor a small gift? I know this question has been asked a bunch of times, but I figured I would ask since my situation is a little unique and I will almost certainly continue working and corresponding with my professor in the future. Basically, I graduated in May, and I have taken two courses with my professor as an upperclassman and spent a year writing an honors thesis with them as my advisor. They have been a great professor, and as my advisor we met most weeks one-on-one during my senior year for my thesis and for mentorship (post-grad/grad school plans, advice in the field, etc) since I plan on applying to PhDs in the field next year. This has all been over Zoom, which has been a little strange (we spoke maybe twice pre-pandemic), but I have really appreciated their help. I also work with them on a long-term research project part-time and remotely at the moment, and plan to meet with them outside of that scope in the future. I was thinking of giving them a handwritten thank-you card and a topical mug (related to their research interests, it's unique and cheap, ~$10) when I meet with them around the beginning of the fall semester. Is the mug too much? Would this be a source of awkwardness moving forward? Thanks so much!

A handwritten card would be spectacular. Also, you might send an email to the chair and dean expressing your gratitude for the professor's help and guidance. I was a chair, and I LOVED getting nice notes concerning faculty; I would not only tell the faculty member that I had received it but also put the information in their annual evaluations. That's part of the permanent record and is very useful for promotions, tenure, and raises.

How much do professors memorize? Can professors recall the famous theorems of their field without consulting a textbook? What about papers? Do they remember all the nitty gritty details of every important paper they read? Should the focus be on getting a broad picture overview of everything or should it be on gaining the ability to actually recall stuff without consulting external resources?

One of the best pieces of advice my advisor gave me during my PhD was that I needed to act more like a scientist and less like a student—best advice I’ve ever gotten! I wouldn’t call it memorization; it’s definitely a process of just being so immersed in the field that the information is filed away in your mind, and there’s no need to memorize it. Of course, that’s not to say you don’t need to do a Google search now and again or consult a textbook or the literature, but by and large, the knowledge of the crux of your field becomes second nature, in my experience anyway. In STEM, memorizing doesn’t get you very far anyway! The more you read and learn and learn how to think, it’s an almost seamless transition.

What has been the most useful information that you have memorized in your academic career?

For my PhD work, the most useful information to remember was the strongest hot-button areas of disagreement between members of my PhD oral exam committee. If I could get them fighting between themselves for 5-10 minutes, they'd forget I was in the room, and I'd get a breather from answering questions.

What do you wish someone had told you before you started your graduate program? I’m in the process of applying for my MA and my boyfriend is currently applying for his PhD. My end goal is to work in academia. I’m hoping to get general advise on the pros/cons of grad studies and hear about what you wish people had told you about it.

I wish someone had told me that going to therapy and seeing a psychiatrist is part of taking care of yourself. It would have made grad school more manageable if my depression had been in check. Ultimately, I made it and landed a very good academic job, but I came out beaten up and emotionally scarred.

What do you wish you had done from day one of your PhD? I'm about to start a PhD in computational plasma physics in September, and I'm looking to start with as good a system as I can from day one. So what do you wish you had done or used from day one? Networking? Filing? Certain coding practices? Clarifying something with your supervisor? I'm interested in anything

I documented everything I read and kept a copy of it, with a short summary paragraph or keywords attached. I made a folder for "not useful articles" so I wouldn't read them again (still with at least the keywords attached, in case they became useful later). I set up alerts from Google Scholar, the library, and the CSS feed for new articles. I met with the librarian to learn the quirks of the databases I was going to use in my field and to help set up the previously mentioned alerts. I did all this later, but it would have saved so much time had I started first thing.

What do you wish you knew during your job hunt? Hi academics. I'm starting that magic period where I start applying for my first real, tenure track job. I know that the hiring process is different for each discipline, country and university, but for those who have been through the process before, I'd love to know what one thing you wish you knew before you start the process.

Try not to have your first interview be for the place you really want to work for. There is a lot of valuable experience that comes from going through the interview process, so if you feel like you'd pass on a particular job opening, it's still a good idea to apply and interview for it. Get all of your interview jitters out of the way before taking interviews for good jobs.

How do you be an interesting conversationalist in conferences? I'm honestly quite ashamed for asking this because this is already my 6th time going to conference and I'm no longer a master student. But I feel like I'm always unable to keep up with the conversations during breaks. Every time I try to approach an interesting scholar whose work is in a similar (or even the same) field as my own, conversations only last for a few minutes before they decided to mingle in other circles or chat with other persons. I have always tried to make the conversation more about them and their researches and not my own, only occasionally sharing what I have and try to only chime in when I think it's relevant to their interest, or if they asked what I do. But more often than not when there's a few seconds of silence the it always ends up with them leaving. I only get along quite well with others if we share not only the field we're working on, but also sites where we do fieldwork/collect our data because the conversation tends to be about our informants, our fieldwork sites, etc. Would a more experienced scholar share their advice on this aspect? Or is this something that I need to work on in a more personal level, as I'm not a good conversationalist as well outside of academia. Thanks so much in advance.

I think you need to reflect on what it is you're trying to get out of a conversation. Just having a conversation for conversation's sake is nice, but when time is limited, you need to work out why you are trying to talk to someone. It sounds like you're judging the success of a conversation by how long it lasts. When I approach someone at a conference, it's usually because I want to talk to them about a research idea—usually because it intersects with what both they and I are doing. Or I'm approaching someone to introduce myself for some other reason. The third type is usually where I know someone well, we've not caught up in a while, and we're just shooting the breeze. In the two other types, though, the conversation has a goal. I'm not just wandering up to people to have a chat and hoping to keep their attention for a while. When I'm at a conference, I'm there to talk to people and have these conversations, but the corollary to that is that if a conversation has run its course, I'm moving on to find the next one.

Why do researchers publish to paywalled journals if they're not getting paid? Is it just the prestige of the journals, or do they have some legit advantages? What's so special about these paywalled journals and publishers? What are some popular pro-open-access alternatives?

You may call it prestige, but it is really about careers. Why would an athlete join the best team possible? Why would an author publish with a high-end publisher rather than self-publish? These things are changing rapidly, but no one submits to "paywall" journals just to feel special.

HELP! I got an interview- how should I prepare?? I just got offered my first interviews ever for an assistant Professor position. I am 7 years out of grad school and did 2 post docs and am now a professor at a small school but I never had to formally interview for any of these!! They are zoom interviews with large public schools in the US. Both are for teaching public health to both grad and undergrad plus research (50/50). What should I expect? What will they be looking for? What questions might they ask? How can I prepare? Should I wear a suit (37f) even though it’s not in person? What does the interview process look like these days? I was on a search committee years ago as a grad student and I am guessing it is going to be completely different than it was back then due to Covid.

Be prepared to talk about how your research, teaching, and service contribute to equity and inclusion. Dress well—you will feel more prepared. Utilize your breaks well. I had meals/snacks planned out because they typically only give you 15-minute breaks throughout the day. Practice your presentation. This seems obvious, but when I interviewed last summer, the nerves got to me and my seminar came across as uninspired. (Still got the job though! Just felt like my seminar could have been better.) Good luck!

Are there any disciplines where the job market is good for PhD grads?

In academia? Not really. For PhD grads going to industry? Yeah. Computer Science is one. From first-hand experience, I can say that computational chemistry is not really good for anything by itself, frankly, but the skills it gives you are a pretty solid foundation for jumping to the tech industry, although sadly it seems you won't enter at the level I feel we should be able to.

Should I give up on my dream to become a Doctor after my supervisors remark. I (26 M) just finished my Masters in Material Science from Italy. I was looking for PhD positions and so I contacted my Master Thesis supervisor for his contact details(I list him as one of my reference). I also inquired about any open positions that might be available in his group. Although he did provide me the contact details but his remarks were really disappointing for me. He said that althought there is no PhD positions in his group but even if there were he wouldn't offer me because he believes I am not capable enough for a PhD. I honestly wouldn't care about his remarks but the thing is if he gives the same remark to a potential supervisor my chances of landing that PhD would be literally zero. what should I do? I have always wanted to enter in Research and development and pursue a PhD but currently I don't see it happening which is very depressing. Should I find an alternative reference or just give up? Your help will be highly appreciated

There's a guy I know who, at his bar exam, was told by a criminal prof that he hoped he'd never go into criminal law because of the oral part of the exam. That guy is now a prof in criminal law, and a very good one, at the same faculty, and both of them love to tell that story.

Is there a good reddit community for stats questions or R? I realize this is a bit off-topic, but academic Twitter only gets you so far. I have some genuine concerns about how to run some of my stats through R and I want to find some (non-Stack Exchange) place to get some feedback without it turning into a collaboration that warrants discussing co-authorship, lol.

You haven’t been able to find what you need on Stack Exchange? I feel like no matter how obscure my question is, I can almost always find someone who’s asked something relevant with a couple of minutes on there. Or is it just that you want to bounce ideas back and forth?

When drafting a paper, do you add formatted references as you go, or do them all at the end? I'm writing my master's thesis now and wondering what the best option is. In the past my strategy has been to hyperlink references in text and format them with a RefMan after. I don't want to send an ugly document to my advisor for edits, though. What does everyone else do?

I use Zotero for keeping track of my references, and I suggest you add references as you go and leave notes to yourself about what you used them for. I'm sure there are other applications that do this if you don't like Zotero, but the idea is to have some sort of searchable document so you aren't scrambling to remember all the references you used when you've written your paper.

How to thread the needle when it comes to risky/safe projects/papers (STEM) I seem to always choose difficult topics for my papers because I want to aim at something high impact. It gets me in trouble because sometimes my ideas don’t work out. Does anyone have any tips on how to recognize research problems that are less risky and can ensure a more consistent output?

I think the principle of "failing fast" is very important, and especially on large-scale, "risky" projects—that is, at every step of the way, trying to think of the quickest and easiest way to prove that what I'm doing isn't going to work. At least for me, it's really easy to just put my head down and work for weeks or months on some sophisticated model or experiment, just to have it not work out, when there's often a quick sanity check that would have taken only a few days and shown me that it wouldn't work.

Just got my first rejection on a paper. One of the reviewers was very sassy and made some unnecessarily rude comments. Is this pretty normal and how do people deal with it?

I make a response which is equally sassy/rude/ridiculous and then delete it. We call it the "First draft". >We think the authors are stupid and their ideas are stupid. **Actually, your face is stupid! I hope all your grants are rejected!!!** Etc., etc.

How’s the academic job market for epidemiology/biostatistics in the U.S.?

Academic epidemiologist checking in. The answer is still “pretty bad.” But it’s honestly better than most fields. Pretty much my whole cohort managed to get faculty positions (about five years ago). But the prestige of the universities varied a lot. No one ended up without a solid PhD epidemiology job, but for some that meant state health departments or non-profits. I am seeing similar patterns in our graduating students.

New Dean, Ethics and H-Index How do you address the case of finding out that your new dean has a google H index of over 100, but is unable to seemingly construct a 2 paragraph email. Further he has offered several faculty members dissertations he has “obtained” from other countries to use and write a paper on. He has the respect of no one since he seems to be a complete research fraud. It’s hurtful and demoralizing that this is the person that we have to work with on a daily basis. He seems to have support from upper leadership at the uni. How can you ever respect anything that this person says or does??

Further, he has offered several faculty members dissertations he has “obtained” from other countries to use and write a paper on. Could you elaborate on this? I don't really understand what this means.

Graduated (PhD science) in December 2016 and advisor wants me to continue working remotely w/o compensation. Is this common? As the title suggests, I defended my dissertation and graduated with a PhD in December 2016. My dissertation research produced a lot of data that can still be analyzed and mined for more cool results/papers. My adviser and former lab currently has that data. During graduation, I left all my lab notes and taught my replacement grad student how to understand the data. Here's my problem/question: although I graduated almost a year ago, my adviser still wants me to continue working with the data. They are interested in publishing more papers as co-authors. On my side, this would involve many hours of remote work from home (I moved to a different state). I explained that I have very little time to work with the lab, since I am scrambling to make ends meet through freelance jobs as I hunt for a permanent position. I am currently looking for work outside of academia. One company is finally eager to hire me. My adviser, who had agreed to provide a reference, pulled out last-minute because (as I warned them), I have not had time to work on the lab's data. The reference will come once I show results. Fortunately, I found a replacement reference, and my other references came through. Currently waiting to hear back from the company. Is it common for former PhD students to continue working for their lab w/o compensation? The only time I've seen this in my lab was through postdoc work. PS: I am not asking this adviser to provide a reference again.

I would say it is common for people to work on manuscripts from groups they have left, but only at their own pace and discretion, and usually if the person is staying in academia. What your old supervisor did, though, is straight bullshit and completely out of order.

Getting into research with low GPA Hi all, I am in my final year of undergrad (Biomedical Sciences). I want to get some opportunity to volunteer or work in a lab to get some lab experience before I graduate. But my low GPA stops me from approaching professors and I know I won't be chosen since I am not one of those exceptional students that professors look for when choosing from applicants. If I want to describe myself then I would say although I am not so super smart but I am quiet hard working. I would learn but take my own time. During high school my grades were 90+ which I achieved only because I sacrificed my sleep, social life and all other entertainment. I am not one of those people who can balance study and social life and the reason is because I learn slow and I review concepts till I feel satisfied enough to confidently say that I know this stuff now. My initial years of undergrad were amazing in that I was pushing myself consistently. Although not an exceptional GPA (had 3.3/4) but I was still considered as "good student". But after the pandemic hit, my mental health suffered a lot (really a lot) and my GPA fell down considerably (currently around 2.9/4). I struggled to get out of bed and was totally directionless and lost. There was this guilt of not doing what I need to do and at the same time I didn't bother about just anything! I did find support later and now somewhat better in terms of mental health but now I have other health issues which keeps me away from giving my best. To be honest, before pandemic the lowest grade I got was C+ and that too in just one course. During pandemic, when I was not at my best, I had a couple of D's too. At present my GPA isn't at its best that I could go and talk to my professors regarding a research position. I know myself well and I know that those D's that I see on my transcript is not me. But I guess when professor will see my GPA and especially those D's I will be pushed out. Anyone here can give me suggestion on how can I approach professors, how do I convince them that I can do better and more importantly what will make them choose me over others despite a bad GPA for lab position???

I think most professors understand that GPA is not a good indicator of research aptitude. Many of them probably had less-than-stellar GPAs when they were undergraduates. What they're looking for in undergraduates is not book smarts. They want to see passion, hard work, the ability to listen, and an overall good lab citizen. So start emailing professors to see if you can join their lab. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

what's the expected number of meeting hours with an assistant professor mentor I (early undergrad) was matched with an assistant professor in a mentorship program (we aren't at the same school). She runs a lab group of 15-20 people. This looks like a large group to me lol, so I suppose that she is quite busy. I hope to learn some technical/hard skills/knowledge during this mentorship program. I am wondering what would be a suitable meeting schedule with a mentor like her? How often will we meet? How long should our meeting times last? I don't want to come off rude by proposing a meeting schedule that's too much commitment for her, but I also don't want to propose an under-average meeting schedule as this doesn't allow me to fully take advantage of the program. Thus, I am wondering what would be considered as a suitable meeting schedule for such situations? Any explanations would be appreciated!

Mentorship programs aren’t usually the place to learn technical/hard skills. Those would be things you get from courses or working in a research lab. Maybe your mentorship program is set up differently, but I’d strongly recommend making sure you’re on the same page about what this program is for.

What can I do to advance the cause of open access?

Opt to publish open access whenever possible. Educate your colleagues on open access and refer them to apply for editorial boards on open-access journals. To me, the biggest barrier is old-school thinking, which can change when we present better options.

Would it be unethical to establish an "authorship ring" if everyone actually contributed intellectually? Suppose 3 friends who work in the same field (Avery, Billie, and Charlie) come to a mutual agreement: They agree to always include each other on papers related to their shared work. They discuss the projects, make suggestions regarding analysis and interpretation, and help each other write the discussion and introduction sections. Would this be considered unethical for any reason? It seems to me like a great way to boost publication count, strengthen networks, and the "many hands make light work" principle.

If all three authors contribute enough intellectually to the papers to merit authorship, then it's not an "authorship ring," it's a collaboration. That said, there's a reason why (field dependent, of course), people tend to value first-authorships (for grad students) and last authorships (for senior authors) over middle authorships.

How did you fall in love with research/science? I just noticed myself decidedly indifferent regarding an ongoing sports debate because I wanted to read more about this topic I love. From someone who loved sports to now science, it's such a big difference! Did anyone else go through this phase? Anyone have a fun story about falling in love with research? :)

I needed a summer job in college and randomly joined a biology lab, thinking it would be easy money—just washing glassware—with no intention of being a researcher. I ended up getting a PhD...

How to come up with focused research questions when reading more and more only makes your topic broader? (Law/phil of law) Hi all, I'm preparing for a PhD proposal and master thesis, which means that I'm spending many hours reading and summarising relevant literature. Now, I feel like I have a good grasp of the literature and the discussions, but I can't for the life of me figure out a focused research questions without wanting to involve a little bit of X and a bit of Y and a bit of Z. What do you do to focus your research question? So once you've read the materials and have a good idea of the state of the art, what process do you use to get to a good focused question?

My advice is simple but very useful: you just need to start writing. Even if you don't have a clear idea about your topic, just write. In the end, the only "real work" you'll have is what you write. And when you're writing, you'll confront your problems and deal with the "blank page crisis." That will force you to focus. If you only read and take notes, you'll waste time and end up having to write your thesis in a hurry and under stress. So, my advice: write.

[US] Professor is requesting a doctor’s note for absence. I am better now and have not gone to the doc. Can I receive one after the fact even if I have no proof of being sick prior to appointment? I was unable to attend a class due to stomach flu, but I got better on my own within a few days. Professor is now requesting a doctors note, but I have no proof that I was sick. I hope this is the right sub for this material.

Check with student health services. Often, they will provide a note if you give them a convincing description of your symptoms and are describing a bug they know to be going around.

Is there a better way for society to determine how many PhDs to train/award each year? The rates of PhD holders obtaining a meaningful career in academia have declined precipitously. This makes one wonder whether we are making too many PhDs, which in turn makes me wonder how would we make the "right" number in the first place? Should society even care about making too many PhD holders, or should society look at this the same way we might think society is buying too many iPhones?

I don’t envision a scenario where advocating for a less educated population is a good thing. I think, if anything, there should be fewer barriers all around for those pursuing additional education. It should be more accessible. Gatekeeping education is not a good idea.

Anyone actually happy with their PhD experience? Bonus points if you're in a scientific discipline. I'm obtaining my Masters currently in ecology and have been entertaining the thought of obtaining a PhD. I just look at all of the jobs available in my area for a Masters degree and, while I love field work a lot more than lab work, all of these positions seem like they would lack intellectual stimulation. I do not directly know what I want to do for a career, though I have been entertaining the thought of becoming a professor or going into some sort of conservation research. I would like to work for (roughly, maybe longer) 2-3 years before pursuing a PhD, if that's what I end up deciding to do. However, I see so many posts on here that are overwhelmingly negative regarding PhD work. These experiences have been very illuminating to me in what to watch out for and what hardships I might experience. But I would love to also weigh what the benefits have been for people who are in the process of achieving their PhD or have already done so.

In talking to other grad students, the enjoyability of grad school depends heavily on your PI and department culture. If it's good, then it's a great experience. If it's really toxic, then it can be a living hell. I am currently really loving my master's work, and most of my fellow PhD students are enjoying their degrees.

Plagiarism and ethical responsibilities of proofreaders I'm a proofreader and editor, currently proofreading a PhD thesis. So far, there's been a fair bit of plagiarism in this thesis, and I've told the student that they'll have to overhaul it entirely to avoid penalties. One thing that's bothering me is the amount of plagiarism that seems to go on within the discipline itself. For example, I found the following sentence in the thesis: "However, unlike traditional EAs, the DE-variants perturb the current generation population members with the scaled differences of randomly selected and distinct population members." I did a Google search for the sentence and found that it appeared in all (and more) of the following articles and book chapters, without quotation marks: * page 93 of *Search and Optimization by Metaheuristics* by Du and Swamy (2016) * page 85 of *Clustering and Routing Algorithms for Wireless Sensor Networks* by Kuila and Jana (2018), published by CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group * *A new hybrid differential evolution with simulated annealing and self-adaptive immune operation* by Zhao et al. (2013) in *Computers & Mathematics with Applications*, vol. 66(10). * page 77 of *Uncertainty Quantification and Model Calibration* by Tang et al. (2017), published by InTech * *Nonlinear Dose–Response Modeling of High-Throughput Screening Data Using an Evolutionary Algorithm* by Ma, Bair and Motsinger-Reif (2020) in *Dose Response*, vol. 18(2) * *Adaptive Differential Evolution with p-Best Crossover for Continuous Global Optimization* by Islam et al. (2010), a paper from the International Conference on Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing. I know that plagiarism is rife among students, but it's amazing to see published authors recycling the same sentence without attribution. If you found a similar case, would you feel an ethical duty to do something about it? Or is this just the sad state of affairs when university budgets are slashed repeatedly?

Honestly, I'm a bit shocked that someone who has been caught plagiarizing their thesis at that stage in the game would only get a "fix this shit." I'm a PhD student myself, but I would expect far worse consequences if I did something similar.

Stupid question: Is it possible/a good idea to do a postdoc parenthesis while in a permanent position? I'm currently in a permanent faculty position in a European country (say Germany-like but not Germany). My pay is not wonderful considering the local cost of life, and I have **a lot** of teaching and admin duties. I feel like I don't have the time for research at all, and this is hurting my career. While recently envying the Ph.D. student of a colleague leaving for a postdoc in Switzerland, where he will be earning about 2.5 times my current salary (which, even adjusting for local cost of living, puts him in a much nicer financial situation that I am currently in), it dawned on me: with no teaching duties, more research time and more money, I would absolutely take that deal! My current University allows me to take a two-year unpaid leave. This is usually used by people moving to another position, as a safety net, but I guess I could take it with every intention of coming back after a "two year postdoc". I was quite successful during my Ph.D., got a permanent position without doing a postdoc, and these two years would help me build up my portfolio for afterwards. I am fairly confident that I could find a postdoc given my current CV. Have you ever heard of something like this? Is my plan completely insane? Is there something obvious that I have overlooked? I'm a married woman, with no kid plans, if it makes any difference.

I have had a few colleagues from places like Poland, Hungary, and Russia who are in your position and doing what you plan. It even seems like part of the typical career trajectory for young mathematicians these days.

What is the biggest turn-off in academia that aspiring PhD students may not know about?

Your chance of actually getting a job in academia is nearly nonexistent. For example, today we learned that a professor, who is already 72, will be staying at our university for at least another 5 years. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but with his salary, we could be paying 4 or 5 PhD students who conduct actual research, not someone who hasn't set foot in a lab in the last 25 years and only attends conferences where all they do is praise each other and their accomplishments.

I absolutely hate my PhD advisor, and the enviroment I work, but love the field what should I do? So the changing the advisor is impossible, but I just hate him, discussing science with him sucks, i always feel a competition from him it is just not fruitful. I am his first phd student so he is not very experienced, also his ideas were mostly bs. I really absolutely hate working here and working with him. I love my field though I don't know what the fuck I should do.

I hated my advisor with a passion, had serious conversations with other potential advisors in the department, realized the other options were not better, and then had a very frank discussion with him about our working relationship. I asked him why he seemed chronically irritated with me, told him I was unhappy, and then our relationship really turned around. Now, three years out of my PhD, I realize how lucky I was to have him as my advisor.

Is it ever worth it to get a PhD because you are absolutely captivated by the subject, despite being very disillusioned with academia? I'll keep the background brief, as I don't want to reveal too much personal information and/or humble-brag. Anyways, I graduated this past May after an abnormally long time in undergrad. This was by choice, however, and I am fortunately currently employed in an entry-level, non-academic job position, which is deeply connected to my field of study for the next year (or 2). I chose to take this gap year(s) so that I can recover from "school-environment burnout", come to terms with a nasty case of imposter syndrome, settle personal goals, and formulate a more solid plan for the future. As it currently stands: So far, so good. My intermediate goals are still on track to be very achievable, but its the long term ones that I'm having problems with... During my last 2 years in school, I managed to secure some very interesting on-campus job/research positions, which gave me an in-depth look into the world of academia. I **really** didn't like what I saw. Too much pettiness, personal politics, playing favorites, and backstabbing. Despite this, I still absolutely love my field of study and I have many more research topics, deeper questions, and interests that I want to pursue. I originally wanted to do a PhD, but now I'm not so sure it would be worth dealing with that much petty bullshit. Help?

Just so you know, the corporate world is absolutely no different from academia in personal politics, playing favorites, and backstabbing. Grass is always greener, however, I'll acknowledge that the money tends to be better on the other side. But then again, it's rare that you'll be captivated to the same degree as you will if there's an academic subject that highly interests you. Corporations are there for the money; it is their primary purpose. Your goals are only allowed insofar as they advance that goal. If there is an opportunity to pursue your subject matter to the end in academia, I say go for it. You have the rest of your life to sell out. But once you do, you may not have the same amount of time left in your life to pursue what interests you as an individual.

Conference Etiquette Question, Kinda Specific Hi! I am a former academic (MA in a critical/cultural theory-related field, dropped out of PhD program in that same field after two years due to circumstances somewhat-but-not-entirely out of my control) in the United States. I currently work in higher ed, but in an administrative role mostly unrelated to my field of study. My partner is a current 1st year PhD student in Philosophy (also in the United States.) He is attending an academic (not specifically philosophy, but philosophy related) conference later this year, in a place I've never been. Many of the panels at this conference are on topics that I have a lot of interest in, have written about, etc... I have many friends attending this same conference, most of them giving talks. I have been asked my my partner to attend. I am friends with a few of his professors, and they have also encouraged me to attend. If I go, not only will I be visiting a new and exciting place, but I will be reuniting with some close friends that I haven't seen since pre-covid times. Obviously, I want to go. Here's my question: I understand that typically, if someone brings their (non-academic) partner to a conference, that partner is expected to be on their own for the majority of the conference, while the partner attending the conference attends talks, engages in networking, etc... And, I'm fine with that. However, seeing as how I am more familiar with the subject matter, and know far more people there than he does, would it still be inappropriate for me to attend talks? I want to introduce him to people! (If I'm being completely honest, I also miss academia very much, and would return if I could afford to quit my job. Part of why I want to attend talks is for the intellectual fulfillment which, it turns out, I am really craving.) So, what is the correct etiquette here? The way I see it, it can go one of three ways: 1) Attend social events only? I'm there because my partner is, and I so I should spend my time like any other non-academic partner would--exploring the city and hanging out on my own. 2) Attend talks given by my friends, but no other non-social events. (Obviously, I would pay the membership fee required to attend the conference.) 3) Attend whatever I want (again, having paid the membership fee to attend), ask questions, meet new people, and basically treat the conference as though I belong there as much as anyone else. I want to do what's best for my partner, ultimately. I wouldn't be attending the conference, purchasing a membership, etc.. if he wasn't going. I know I can be an asset, but I also don't want my presence to come off as rude or inappropriate. Thanks for reading, thanks for responding!

Go for it! Just make sure he has time to go to talks outside of your interests, meet people who aren't just your connections, etc. I think the norm of partners going off to explore the city is just because they'd rather do that and paying for the conference would be a waste. Or they have their own work to do. Not your situation.

Am I too old to be pursuing a career in Academia? Tl;'dr at bottom I'm a 33-year-old man. Will hiring bodies pass me up and choose someone else if they are younger? Assuming we are matched in most other ways? Its my childhood dream, and lifelong dream, to get involved with archaeological research. I know Im not gonna be making a lot. That doesn't matter to me at all. I just want to be apart of the discovery and help contribute to science and the human story. I did not go to college after high school. Circumstances lead me in another direction. I went through some difficult things and began working in construction. I didn't get another opportunity to go back to school until I was 27 years old. I loved getting back into school and did quite well and got involved in a number of school related activities, wrote for the paper and tutored college English to ESL students. I too another break after reaching my degree. an AA-T; Associates in Arts to Transfer. and then applied to a state college. I put off going back because of covid. I much prefer being in class in person as Im sure many others do too. I was accepted at the school and am in a Bachelors program with a major in anthropology. I think getting a BA in general anthropology is a good idea because it opens up a few more doors than just archaeology alone. And I think anthro. is easier to sell to a future employer and is good on a resume. I intend to get a masters and if I can find work in the field in the meantime that would be a double win. I would love to go beyond a masters and a definitely want to get involved in research and academic archaeology that involves work over seas. Tl;dr So here I am. I just turned 33. I have solid reasons why I'm so far behind but I still feel awful and feel upset about it but I am not giving up. Even if you dont have any knowledge of archaeology I would still very much like to hear from you. I am the only person I'm my extended family to get this far in school. I dont have friends or siblings whom I can as for advice

People always respond: “No, you’re not too old.” I’ll say that the odds of getting an academic job in anthropology or archaeology are not good (that’s an understatement) for anyone, regardless of age. While you’re not “too old,” the opportunity cost is much higher for someone your age than for someone who gets their PhD at 30, spends a couple of years on the job market, then decides to cut their losses. If you go the PhD route, you’ll be done at 41 at the earliest. Give a few years on the academic job market, you’ll almost be in your mid-40s when you try to move on to something else. It’s hard. You may decide it’s worth the risk, but you should be aware of what you’re up against: the worst job market ever in many academic fields.

Is academia as intellectually stimulating as you thought it would be? (relative to industry) I'm curious whether it is almost always the case that academia is superior to industry for intellectual stimulation/growth, as I've read that a significant portion of your job is bureaucracy/applying for grants/politics/"careerist"-centric. Anecdotally, I do see that, in old age, academics seem to retain their cognitive functions for a longer period, and I wonder if this is due to the life-long intellectual stimulation, and not simply that they were always impressive.

I have worked in both academia and industry. The academic environment (in my field) is intellectually stimulating from a scientific discovery point of view. In industry, it's similar but from a more practical problem-solving perspective. Ultimately, the difference between academia and industry depends more on the specific field of study than anything else. Good luck.

Can a person's success in academia be predicted by any factors such as his performance during his undergraduate years? Sometimes I wonder if there are any predictors for success in academia. Some undergraduate students seem to know that research is the right path for them when this field is somewhat "risky" in the sense that is publish or perish.

I have always assumed that the best predictor of graduate student and tenure-track success was doggedness—willing to work hour after hour on publications and teaching. Of course, there are many other factors, but tenacity must count for something. In regards to reference letters, I would assume that the most dogged student, the one who puts in the most hours, would also impress their professors the most and thus also receive the best letters of reference.

Is academia actually as pessimistic as /r/AskAcademia and /r/gradschool make it out to be? One would get the impression from all the grad students suffering from impostor syndrome and all the posts about getting out of academia that academia is full of pessimists...thoughts? I'm only an undergrad, but I've met many grad students and profs, and most seem pretty happy with their choice of career. Maybe the appearance of pessimism just stems from the fact that academia is just a competitive industry? I know it's hard to get a professorial position, and most grad students probably want to become professors.

I think there are two key points here. First, you are an undergrad, and you are getting a highly selective image. It would be very unprofessional for a professor or grad student to be brutally honest with an undergrad. I know that my view as an undergrad was vastly different than what I have experienced as a grad student (both what I've personally seen and what professors will share with me). As an undergrad, you are not exposed to the bureaucratic hurdles, the petty infighting, the pressure to publish, the lack of control, especially as a grad student. Second, there is some selection bias in who you are speaking with, especially the professors. They are the lucky ones who have found positions (tenure or tenure-track). For me, the problem is not competition itself, but rather that success often depends upon things outside your control (or are arbitrary) or it demands such a high level of conformity that it crushes your soul.

The chair of my department messaged me about my mentor. I don't know what to do. I am prior military and the type of email I received would have been a career killer for the receiver in that world. The chair told me that he had heard my mentor had requested or demanded an off-campus meeting with me and refused virtual meetings. This is not true at all. I am 90% sure of who told the chair this. The person I suspect does not like my mentor, or me for that matter. I feel good about what I wrote the chair. I was clear and there is no way to misinterpret what I wrote. My question is: I want to message my mentor. I want to tell him what's going on and to "watch out" because he's not tenure, and the person who doesn't like him is misrepresenting him. There are two things I'm worried about with this. 1. is it appropriate to message him? Or will it just stir the pot? 2. While my mentor has never been inappropriate with me, I have no idea if that's true for his other mentees. I have no reason to suspect him, but I know that doesn't mean anything. I don't want to "tip" him off if this is part of something actually serious and give him time to cover his tracks...if any of that makes sense. So, academia. What do I do?

It's a tough call. Personally, had this happened with my department chair and advisor, I'd have forwarded it to my advisor to give them a heads-up immediately, but everyone's situation and context is different. So, I wouldn't necessarily say that *you* should go that route, as only you know the context of the situation and whether your mentor deserves that level of trust and openness from you. The safest thing for you is probably to tell your mentor, but in some form that doesn't leave a paper trail, like a virtual meeting. If you go that route, be sure to tell them basically only what the email says; they probably have a much better sense of department politics than you do and can presumably fill in the blanks themselves.

PhD student about to present at my first conference. Terrified. Sorry for any typos or babbling, panicking at the moment and on my phone. I'm a final year PhD student in the UK, and I am about to fly out to Colorado on Saturday for a week. On Thursday I will be giving my first conference talk, and my second ever talk in front of people ever. I am at the stage where I am seriously considering not going and just quitting my PhD. I have been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and OCD. My OCD is with perfectionism, where absolutely everything (seriously everything! ) has to be perfect otherwise it's worthless and I am a failure. My supervisor is aware and is very supportive but he now has a big lab group and new PhD students so I feel his patience may be wearing thin. I know that if I don't go, it will seriously haunt me for the rest of my life and make me feel even more of a failure. However, I am at the stage where I'm hyperventilating and panicking every day and have been for the past few weeks. I gave the same talk a few weeks ago to my department (about 100 people) and the talk bit went brilliantly (everyone thought I was a pro), but I really screwed up the questions and just fumbled my way through answers. Tomorrow, I have about 10 or 15 academics coming to watch me give the talk to provide me with comments on aesthetics and any questions they have, but I'm even terrified about this too.

I always like to remember that no matter how bad my presentation is, 1) only about 12 people will know, and 2) I'll still be able to put it on my CV.

Prof invites me to travel with her for research but unpaid. Should I take it? Currently an undergrad finishing school at the end of this year. A professor who has similar research interests as I told me about his trip to country X next year for a research project when I visited her office this week. I had been wanting to go to country X for a while, was originally planning to go on my own. The professor mentioned that the cost for living could be subsidized but she have no fundings for my other expenses. Since the country is very underdeveloped, the transport and all other expenses in total are estimated to be around 5k USD for 20-25days. At the same time. I do have job offers lined up after graduation which could help pay off my 15k in student loans. Even though the research project really fits with my future endeavors and will perhaps boost my grad school application and resume. A part of me just don’t feel right about working for “free”. Should i deny this offer or take this as an “opportunity”? Thanks in advance.

Before you throw in the towel, talk with the researcher about your concerns, especially if you are really interested. Also, depending on your school, sometimes there are awards or other funding (not loans!) that you can receive to help with living abroad to conduct research.

Reject a paper for being out of scope as a reviewer? Hi! I have been reviewing a paper, but it is totally out of scope of the journal it was sent by. I do not know if I should directly reject it without reviewing or perform a proper review (for a certain reject decision). Any suggestion?

This is a question to ask the editor who assigned the review to you. They may have decided that it is in scope, or they may have decided to leave that up to the reviewers. There is only one way to find out.

How did this paper pass peer review in ‘94? A friend recently came across this paper from the Diabetes Care Journal (impact factor 19 in 2020) that presents the most basic integration formula as an original method: Tai MM. A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves. Diabetes care. 1994 Feb 1 (doi) With 476 citations! Why is the idea of approximating the area under a curve via thin rectangles (an even simpler version of the trapezoidal rule which exists since at least 50 BCE) published as original research? Or why is the application of a 2000+ year old formula to metabolic curves as recently as 1994 deemed novel by this paper’s reviewers?

The value of this paper is that I can use it as an example on the first day of calculus class when a bunch of med students with bad attitudes complain about why they will never need calculus.

Supporting My Fiancée Through The PhD Finishline Background: we met in our hometown over Christmas break, I was doing prerequisite classes at the local CC. She was in her second year of her PhD on the other side of the country (we’re from the west coast, now living on the east coast). I ended up getting into a good mechanical engineering program about 2.5 hours away from where she was getting her PhD. After a year, I decided she was the one I wanted to marry. So in July of 2020, I made the move across the country. The transition was super rough for me, especially starting at a new institution online. I struggled making any friends in and out of school. My hobbies are ultra distance running, mountain biking and carpentry. There are groups that do these things, but unfortunately I wasn’t able to go to these meet ups due to schedule constraints. My transition was hard for her too. I was not the most supportive of her PhD in the first year of my move because of my depression and anxiety. I recognize that I was not being the cheerleader I should have been. Fast forward: we are now engaged (SO HAPPY!!!!) and I have leader how to be the best cheerleader I can be. I don’t give grief when she has to cancel plans or when the plan changes drastically. I’m okay with doing things alone, which I have been doing a lot of recently. But I’m struggling with the uncertainty of not knowing where we’re going to end up. I don’t want us to go back to our hometown because of many reasons, and she doesn’t either. I do want to end up in a place where I can pick my hobbies back up. My identity is not wrapped up in my school, or potential career. What brings me the most joy (other than my SO) is moving in the mountains for long periods of time. Our current location limits my options to train for races and adventures to a point where I’ve basically given up on my needs. I realize that we’re not going to be in one spot after she finishes, and that not my concern. I’m okay with bouncing around, so long as it’s in an area where I have good access to mountains and a reasonable job. She has absolutely no idea where we could end up. She has a lot of potential opportunities. But nothing is set in stone. My question is: do I make a plan for me that is best suited for my happiness? Or do I wait until the last minute to make a plan for me with the hope that it will be a decent spot? Any insight or thoughts are welcomed so long as they’re constructive. Thanks for your time!

You're engaged. The times of making plans for "me" are in the past. All of your plans should be made together, as a team, from now on. I would suggest not making any more plans in your head and being completely open with your partner. As far as supporting the end of a PhD, I assume this means she is yet to defend and write. If this is the case, then I would recommend shelving the future plan discussion for now. Your partner should be 100% focused on making progress towards crossing the finish line and resting/refueling when they can find the time. That's it.

How do I approach my conservative scholarship program about making our content more inclusive? Please let me know if this isn't the right place for this question! I'm new to Reddit. I'm in an undergraduate mentored scholarship program (I'm a rising sophomore). This was my dream program, and I feel lucky to be part of it. However, this program has a reputation on campus and in the community for being extremely conservative, which I am not. I was assured when I was offered the scholarship that it was a non-partisan group without bias and that I would be welcome. While I have enjoyed my time in the program, I have a few issues. We read books and hold upwards of 50 unique private and public lectures and seminars throughout the year. Every book we've read has been by a white man, and all of our guest speakers have been white (though we had several women speak this past semester for the anniversary of the 19th amendment). I have brought up my issues with the lack of diversity before, but I don't think I'm being taken seriously since I'm new to the program, and I'm one of the few outspoken liberals. Once when I did mention diversity during a philosophy seminar, I was told that there just aren't many female philosophers, and the ones who did exist don't have many, if any, surviving texts, so we couldn't study them. Obviously that wasn't the response I was hoping for, and I didn't feel comfortable bringing up the problem again. Additionally, several of my fellow scholars seem to think I'm overreacting or that the program is trying to bring in diverse speakers, but they won't come because of our reputation (though there's been no evidence that this is the case). I know some of my friends feel the same as I do, but they don't want to rock the boat or make any of the staff upset by criticizing the programming. This mostly flared up because our summer reading list was just announced, and it is once again all white male authors. Am I overreacting? Is there a certain way I can approach this without seeming too confrontational or disrespectful? I know a lot of work goes into making our schedules and choosing books to read, but I want to work with the program to make it better for future students. I'm just nervous, and I feel a bit lonely since no one seems as bothered by the issue as I am. Thanks in advance!

This is obviously a huge problem, and it's really courageous of you to take it on. I suspect that there are some long-standing problems here—beginning with a commitment to "classic" humanistic study that largely depends on a critical tradition established by white male scholars in the twentieth century. In addition, it's clear that you're being gaslighted—the notion that there are not female philosophers (in both continental and analytic traditions) is patently false and disprovable with a quick Google search. So, dismantling what is clearly a deeply entrenched ideology in the very curriculum of a university program is something that will probably require one of a few major things: a) curricular change approved at the department/program level, b) a change in the director that you mentioned who picks most of the reading, or c) a demand from a large proportion of the students that the readings be revised. Some of these are institutional and are completely out of your control. Nonetheless, I think there are some things that you can do. While the reading group idea is obviously a bit patronizing, there's something to it, at least to the extent that you'd be bringing together some like-minded individuals to study, say, Wollstonecraft, Fuller, Douglass, Du Bois, etc. There are reading lists available online for this kind of curriculum, or you can reach out here if you need help (I'd personally be happy to assist). Once this gets some traction, you'll have allies in the truly venerable goal that you've set. One other idea with which you might be able to approach the institution is the following: think about suggesting the democratization of the program. Ask that students (or a student rep) be involved in the process of selecting texts or inviting speakers, or that you all vote on a particular text/speaker to be added to the curriculum. Even if only a couple of texts or speakers each year are student-chosen, you can perhaps start to chip away at these arcane practices. Best of luck!

Do you print papers for reading and review? I'm a Doctoral candidate and and the moment I'm working on a couple of papers. Having lots of plots I try my best to get as much information as possible in my graphs/plots. I make them perfect for PDF reading on a monitor or tablet, but my supervisor keeps printing them and asking me to make them print-readable. I don't like it because I have to make the fonts bigger, the lines/points thicker and colors limited. So my question is if anyone really prints papers these days? or maybe you could help me know how should I resolve this issue?

I do not print papers. However, you need to make your plots accessible to everyone, including people who print them out and people with low vision who view them on computer monitors. Rather than trying to make your goal be “put as much info as possible on this figure,” make your goal be “create elegant and impactful figures.” A picture may be worth a thousand words, but if you try to make it worth a million words it becomes useless.

Is it better to not publish at all than publish in an extremely shitty, low tier no name conference? Basically the title. Does a low tier publication dampen your credibility? Or is something better than nothing?

In predatory journals, it is a negative. Low-tier, peer-reviewed is fine, especially for an undergrad where it distinguishes them. They must be able to talk about it, though! A small, first-author publication that an undergrad is passionate about is much different than a predatory journal where the student doesn't even understand their "research."

Professors: What makes a student annoying? Can you ask too many questions/send too many e-mails/visit office hours too frequently? At what point does this occur?

Have you ever been in a lecture where one member of the audience basically acts as though the entire lecture is a conversation just between them and the professor, and all the other students just happen to be there? The non-stop questions (or not giving anyone else a chance to answer), going off topic, constantly referring to personal experiences/anecdotes, making the lecture run over time, and other selfish behaviors? Don't be that person. Asking questions is great, and conversing with the professor is fine at the right time and place (e.g., not in the middle of a lecture), but a total lack of consideration for the other students and the circumstances infuriates me.

How do people in Academia deal with bad coworkers and superiors given the high difficulty of switching jobs? This goes for academics, researchers as well as graduate students and postdocs. Academia is typically highly competitive and difficult to get into as I understand it. It takes years to get into any permanent position let alone tenure track. The careers are also very niche. So someone specializing in say Mughal history probably cannot get into a similar discipline in another university. So chances of finding a replacement job is low. Given such a context, how do you all deal with bad coworkers and superiors or if you unfortunately happen to fall into a toxic environment?

I left a department despite decent long-term prospects due to this (toxic superiors and administration), but it has an astonishingly high turnover for academia, and so I wasn't the only one. I'm still unsure whether leaving was the right call or whether I could have navigated the waters more to my advantage. I think about it a lot. I didn't have a problem finding my next job, but I did take a slightly lower position—I work in a big group instead of heading my own small group. So to answer your question: alcohol, and then I left.

Does being the second author in a Science or Nature or any top-tier journal paper valuable? Can the second author write those papers on their CV? Is it valuable? (I'm a grad student in Physics)

Am I the only one who is jealous that OP can get a paper published in *Science* or *Nature* without knowing this? (Sorry if I’m making assumptions, but this is a major achievement for most scientists.)

Quitting the PhD and how to proceed with the exit strategy? Hi guys, this is a follow-up to my previous post almost a year ago: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/yyrts/need_advice_on_how_to_proceed_with_a_terrible_lab/) Anyways, since that time the lab has really not improved. Our last grant expired a few months ago and we're running on fumes. The lab is still a miserable and dismal place and an incident that occurred after my last post convinced me to start looking for another position. Essentially, I found notebook evidence of falsified data from the previous post-doc. He wrote in his notebook that he gave a group of animals treatment (including dosage volume, weight of animals, date of dosage, etc.). However, on his excel data and in the later pages of his notebook, numerous animals in his treatment group were thrown into the non-treated/control group because I assume the treatment failed. Furthermore from reading his previous publication, he claimed that he used n=20 per group. In the folder that contains all the excel data for his paper, he only has 5 per group. However the mean's and SEM's in the excel sheet all correspond to the published paper's mean's and SEM's. This was extremely annoying because many of us in the lab have projects that are extensions of his paper and if his treatment never worked, it would explain why almost none of us can replicate his data and have been getting confounding results. I proceeded to gather up all this evidence and presented it to my PI in a very diplomatic manner. I showed him how in one page of the notebook the animals were clearly treated and on the next they were thrown into the non-treated group. At this news he acted very concerned and told me to gather up any other data that I found suspicious and that he would talk to that former post-doc. Feeling a ruse, I told him that that was it. I told him very specifically that I did not want to accuse anyone of falsifying data and that I was just bringing up something that "didn't make sense" and was "confounding". I wanted him to make the final call. A week later, I was called into the office and yelled at for over an hour straight. I was told that I was an incompetent child trying to sabotage the lab and his reputation. That the postdoc was beyond reproach. He talked to the postdoc and explained how there was (get this) a piece of towel paper that the postdoc had written on and left at his house correcting that the animals were not actually treated. At this stage I realized that either this guy was in cahoots with the postdoc or just batshit insane to beleive such BS. Either way, he threatened to kick me out of the lab, report me to my department head, etc. I ended up apologizing while secretly being furious. The postdoc's notebooks were taken and have completely disappeared from the lab though a general rule of thumb is everyone, including past lab members, must leave their lab notebooks to help in data replication. Words cannot describe how incompetent and stupid my PI is. I am actually surprised he ever made it this far. During the year he has degraded me by making me write his kids' essays for college and grade my fellow PhDs' written qualifying exams (which he is supposed to grade himself). I have given scores to abstracts for large conferences and even reviewed manuscripts that are meant only for my PI's eyes. My comments need to be broken down into incredibly simple language so that he can understand them (non-native English speaker) and he becomes infuriated when my sometimes page-long reviews are too complicated for him to understand. I have saved e-mail exchanges of him requesting all of the above. Anyways, fast forward a year. I have done pretty well. I won an internal grant, which I ended trading up for a very large national external grant. My PI still attributes this to his "mentorship" although he has never given me any useful advice in his life. The day that I won this large grant, he called me into his office and told me that he thought I won this grant due to luck and his mentorship. He then proceeded to tell me that I had too much free time on my hands and was not a hard worker...on the day that I won a huge national grant. I responded that I was teaching this quarter (I did awesome and had stellar reviews because I dedicated a lot of time to it). He snapped back that he was patient with me this quarter, but he expected more work out of me in the coming months. I was understandably pissed. All that is coming around though. I planned my escape route after being yelled at a year ago by applying for numerous jobs and other programs. I basically have large standing offers from numerous avenues in and out of science. I don't want to list them here, but I will say that all of them either pay incredibly lucratively or are acceptances at top 5 medical institutions. My question is how do I quit in a way without making too many waves? I consider the bridge with my PI burnt as he is not a reasonable person at all and will take any attempt to leave (especially with a huge grant) as a grave insult. He has also not ever graduated a single PhD student so it will hurt his standing. I do not want him going batshit insane and slandering me with lies so he doesn't look bad losing a student(though actually I am fairly ready for this to happen). I do have backups of all data and email exchanges so I guess I could totally nuke his reputation if I heard he was trying to destroy mine. I am planning on telling him that I am disillusioned with science and was given a high paying offer to work and that it is nothing personal: I just want to work and make money. I am planning on doing this soon and giving only a few days notice because I know he will flipout and kick me out immediately. However, I am also planning on scheduling a preemptive meeting with the head of my department, who is a much more reasonable person, and telling him the truth of why I am leaving (crazy insane PI).

If it were me, I'd just be honest. Hand him a resignation stating you're not happy at the organisation and want to be elsewhere. Don't make threats, don't make a drama, just plain and simple. If he gets his back up over it, then there are ways of escalating. But low-key, minimum fuss is the way forward.

Returning to academia after being a stay at home parent Posting with a throwaway.... Situation is this -- my spouse is also an academic. After getting PhDs in 2012 (I am in social sciences), spouse got a TT job in the middle of nowhere US, while I struck out. We had three kids in quick succession, I stayed home as primary caregiver. This past academic year, I worked at spouse's university just as a VAP filling in for the year after an unexpected vacancy that fit me. Spouse was denied tenure and is done with academia, looking for a job in industry now, flexible on location. I have been decently active with research, particularly with limited resources, and the fact that I was a stay at home parent for 6 years. In the last year, I had three peer reviewed publications, including one that got a fair amount of press coverage. However, those were the first publications I've had since I was a graduate student. How should I address the gap when applying for academic jobs in the upcoming academic year? I've received conflicting advice from my mentors. One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children that it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. But at the same time, I feel like otherwise search committees will see a single VAP, and only a handful of publications post-PhD without accounting for the fact that I wasn't even employed as an academic for six years. Any suggestions going forward? Would this make sense for my recommendation letter writers to address, or should I cover it in my own cover letter? I am female if that makes any difference here at all.

One of my letter writers told me that I shouldn't mention it at all, as it will make search committees think that since I stayed at home with my children, it will signal that I am not sufficiently committed to my research. If you don't mention it, how are you going to deal with the six-year gap in your CV? I would suggest it's better to give the committee an explanation than have them make up their own stories. Your letter writer's advice might be sensible if the situation were different (e.g., if you could just write "2012-2017: Big Name University" and not mention that you took 2014 as unpaid leave). But I think any committee that's going to have issues with spending time on kids is going to have issues with an unexplained CV gap, too. I suggest mentioning it in your cover letter, but positively, as a statement of a perfectly normal fact. Don't be tempted to make excuses and justifications—you just encourage people to view it negatively.

Thank-you notes after academic job interviews How do you feel about them?

I doubt it impacts the hiring decision, but I think they are still important. We shouldn't just do things that serve our own interests. Sometimes "it's the kind thing to do" is a good enough reason.

How to stay motivated with constant rejection? I graduated from my masters over a year ago and since then have been working with my professor on various projects, attending conferences and soon we will publish. It’s been a productive 1-1.5 years and I’ve got a lot of experience and gotten a lot better. We have applied for funding for my PhD three times during this time and have been rejected each time. We have expert collaborators and I think our idea has merit, it’s just so competitive. She just suggested that I can continue my work and do a PhD and she will continue to provide my current salary (~€850/month) and we can apply for grants for field work etc. So normally I would be giddy about this idea. However, all the other PhD students get paid three times this much (because they are funded). I said that I could maybe do this for a few years but frankly I have been a poor student for a long time and am in desperate need of a salary. She sort of just told me that’s the way academia is and it’s up to me. I have just lost all motivation at this point. What do I do?

I think getting rejected from 3 fellowships is not that unusual. Are there any other options you can apply for? If I knew I still had 2-3 chances, plus could reapply for everything the following year, maybe I would take the $850/month deal and really rethink the way the project is presented. It also depends on where you live and how much you can do with that money. Also, do you think this lab/PI is so much better for you than another lab in the same field where you would be funded? Are you willing to move abroad? I know countries where PhDs are employed and they don't need to apply for their own salary (e.g., Switzerland).

Do you know anyone that would think it is ethical to submit to Nature for their 10k€ fee/2k€ review fee ? I've read the news that Nature will start accepting open access papers for a 10k€ fee. 6 months of a PhD salary. You could also send a paper and get a "guided review" for 2k€, that they say will be "more insightful". linky I'm wondering...Even if your group did have such money... Would you consider publishing with them? Is it ethical? Will a funding agency ever approve spending so much money on a paper?

Generally speaking, Open Access is not free of charge. But OA papers tend to be more cited because they are more widely available. So they're basically saying, "If you pay us a fee, you will have even greater visibility than the one you would already get with Nature." To be honest, if you have the type of funding that allows you to do research that can be published on Nature, you should have the 10,000 euros to spare for OA publication.

Why do some academics stop doing research once they become tenured Noticed this as a common thing among some professors at my school. Last article each of them published was around 5\-8 years ago. Does this occur at your school too?

Burnout: Service obligations crank up once job security is assured. More freedom to explore longitudinal or "controversial" project ideas that might lead to failure/dead ends, which would have been pre-tenure career suicide.

Any of you worked full time while pursuing PHD at same time? How was it? Should I do it?

Yep. I was the primary wage earner and insurance carrier for my family. While I was offered a really nice fellowship package, it wasn't nearly enough to meet my household's needs, so I decided to keep working and make it work. It worked. Mostly. I found coursework easier than candidacy/dissertation because of external deadlines rather than self-imposed ones (I'm also ADHD, so ymmv on that...). Toward the end, I switched jobs to one that was more aligned with my research and academic work, and that made a HUGE difference because my brain didn't have to switch focus and ways of working constantly anymore. For reference, I'm in the social sciences (no lab/field work) and had a kid, a partner (who stayed home with said kid), a mortgage, both sets of our parents within three miles, and a job that was reasonably flexible schedule-wise but not at all aligned with my studies. My job also offered partial tuition reimbursement, which helped offset my tuition costs but didn't cover them all. I was well into my career at that point, and the tuition costs were easier to stomach than a massive pay cut and having to pay ridiculous premiums for insurance for my partner and kid. I will say there is a big difference between a program that is willing to accept students who are working full-time outside of the program and programs that embrace students who are working. Try to get a sense of this as you're considering applying.

What to bring to an academic conference? I’m a PhD student in the humanities getting ready to present at my first in person conference. I’ve attended and presented in virtual conferences before, but I don’t know what to bring to this one when I’m not attending from the comfort of my own home. Do I need business cards? Should I bring snacks/a water bottle?

Ph.D. students have business cards? Seriously, though, you don't need to bring anything with you. Conferences even provide notepads and pens in case you don't have your own way of taking notes during the sessions. A water bottle is a good idea, depending on the conference, there may be a drink station set up. Most of all, bring your networking attitude. Have fun, ask questions, exchange Twitter handles, and mingle.

Ethical to take vacation with family on conference trip? There's a conference in a few months that I am planning to go to, and I was planning to take my family (SO, 2 kids age 3 and 10m) because it's in a cool city. The plan is to arrive a few days in advance, have a couple full days before the conference to ourselves, utilize the conference child care program for the 3 year old while I'm attending talks so that my wife can have a couple days to "herself" (10m included) being a tourist in the city. It occurred to me today that this might not be the most ethical thing to do, mainly the child care thing. You do have to pay for it so it's not a free program that I'd be taking advantage of, but I worry that the conference is expecting that to be used for people that \*need\* to bring their children instead of people that simply \*want\* to bring their children. I'm still pretty new to the conference world so I wanted to run this by this sub and see what you all think. If it's relevant - I'm in a STEM field in the US at an R1.

Your school might have specific requirements about this, but generally, it's good. I know I was at a place that limited the number of personal days to the business days ratio on a funded trip.

If you could do your undergrad over again, where would you go, what would you study, and why? Any advice for someone about the do their undergrad (with the intention of going to grad school) would be much appreciated!

Get as much research experience—working, doing experiments, writing things up, etc.—as possible. A paper with your name on it is invaluable for grad school (I have one, but like 3 years after I graduated, LOL). Beyond that, however, do the smallest number of core classes as possible. If you are in STEM, take as many arts and social science electives as you can: political philosophy, military history, art history, etc.—are among the best for me. Arts and Social Sciences taught me how to read and write while Science employed me. However, do pay attention to statistics classes. They are extremely useful. The bad thing about my undergrad science education has been the lack of focus on writing and reading, which turned out to be the most difficult part of my PhD and professional research life. Luckily, the couple of essays per class, two classes per semester or so in arts and social sciences, really forced me to learn to write well. Then, when you are asked to frame a research question in terms of wider sociological impact, there is a base to start from.

Our program faculty are GONE!! Advice + Tips for an unsure future. I am currently enrolled in a graduate program within the California State University system in the U.S. The program is a two-year program that requires a thesis. However, most people finish in 3 years as the thesis component typically takes some time. Last month, it was announced that 1 of the three faculty members would be leaving the program. Today, it was revealed (by students from that lab) that another faculty member would be leaving the program as well, meaning there will only be one faculty member to oversee approximately 21 students. As much as I want to believe that they will hire someone by the start of the Fall semester, I do not know if it will be possible. With that said, this means that for the foreseeable future, there will only be ONE faculty member to teach all nine graduate courses and conduct research oversight for 21 students (most students will likely be put on hold and therefore delay graduation by yet ANOTHER year or two), and perform whatever additional tasks are needed outside of teaching and advising (i.e., overseeing the program, senate committee work, etc.). For the most part, the students have been kept in the dark about our future, and it is starting to become worrisome. I was hoping to get advice on what steps the rest of the students and I should take to ensure we aren't left on a sinking ship. One of my initial ideas was to get the rest of the students together and submit a petition to the dean that the thesis component is dropped due to the lack of available faculty to provide the necessary support. I'm not sure what else we could do in this situation. Any advice is welcome and appreciated!

They can’t drop the thesis; they would run afoul of CSU rules and guidelines. Nothing says faculty outside the program (or at another CSU) can’t be readers on the thesis. That’s the likeliest option.

Can you study Computer Science without being super passionate about it? Atm I study philosophy at uni and due to some logic courses I took I remembered how I used to enjoy programming a few years ago in school and I wasn't too bad at it. Since then I've been thinking about switching to studying computer science. Like I said, I used to quite like programming and in general am interested in the topic as a whole but I am not someone who for example creates websites in their free time or does projects on their own and stuff like that. I feel like a lot of people who study cs are super passionate about it and know so much about computers (which I don't) and spend their free time programming. I'm not like that but still interested in cs, do you think it's a good idea if I still try? I'm also a bit insecure about switching to cs since I'm a girl and the subject is still widely male dominated at my uni (50 women and 250 men) and I don't want to fill out the stereotype of women not being able to do math or code. TL;DR: I loved the logic courses I did in philosophy and want to switch to cs but I'm not too tech-savvy or do coding projects for fun - is it a good idea if I still try? At school I was quite good at math and coding.

You can study anything without being passionate about it. I'm a woman, and I have a PhD in mechanical engineering, and I'm not passionate about it. Work is work, and it doesn't suck if you don't hate it or find it boring. Now that doesn't mean work can't be fun, and I don't enjoy it; my feelings are that it's nice. The only time I get excited about it is when something works and it wasn't before because I'm a Type A person who likes making things work and work well, lol. I'm passionate about music, reading, art, cooking, exercising, walking in the woods, traveling, and cats. I think you should definitely give it a go! College is the time to try things. Yeah, it sucks to have the extra pressure of being "not the idiot woman," especially when you're one of the only women in the class. But there are vast amounts of resources and networks, especially for women who code. If you are feeling alone and need support, please reach out, and I will help you find some groups, clubs, or societies. As a fellow woman in STEM, I'd hate to see someone turn away because of the stigmas that exist.

Deciding between two faculty job offers: prioritize salary or opportunity for advancement? Hi all, I am deciding between two institutions in two very different locations. One offer is for a research assistant professor position so the salary is quite low. Other than the low pay and non-tenure position, it’s a dream. Great mentorship, tons of data, amazing collaborators, lots of internal funding available, and I’m told, high probability of transitioning to tenure-track within the first two years. The other offer is for a tenure-track assistant professor position with a 6-figure salary (although in a slightly higher cost-of-living area). But I would be so much more solitary…there would be mentorship, but not in my exact discipline. Although I’d have start-up funds, I’d really have to make connections and build collaborations independently whereas with option 1, it would be much more organic. I’m torn and change my mind daily. Does anyone have any words of wisdom?

If you are open to negotiating on your own behalf, you should let the non-tenure track institution know you are leaning toward declining in favor of a tenure-track offer elsewhere. (Note: I have a strong bias toward the real opportunity for tenure vs. some dangled promise that may not materialize.)

Is it weird to switch from formal to informal in addressing a past professor? During my undergrad, I became relatively close to two professors. Each served as a thesis advisor for my degree theses; has written numerous recommendations for fellowships, grad programs and jobs on my behalf; and has had me write recommendations for awards and professorships they were going for. I graduated four years ago but I've maintained somewhat steady contact with both professors (1-2 times a year). I have ALWAYS used "Dr. XXX" when writing or talking to them, both in undergrad and in past communications. However, I've noticed they have both begun signing off on their emails with their first names (something they never did before). Should I continue to use "Dr." as a sign of respect or are they signaling me that we're past the strict student-professor relationship now?

If their sign-off has switched, you can start calling them by their first name (or whatever they sign off as). It’ll be weirder for you to switch than it will be for them—I’m a tenured academic and still feel weird calling my undergraduate advisor by his first name after all these years!

Addressing Professors By First Name If a professor signs their emails with just their first name when replying to you, is that an invitation to address them by their first name or should you keep calling them Dr. Lastname? Particularly in emails, where you open with “Hi Dr. Lastname,” or “Hi Firstname,”. I’ve done both and thus have probably offended half of my professors...

I'm in the US, and I sign my emails with my first name because I want all of my students to call me by my first name. I don't mind the following (no preference): Dear Firstname, Dear Professor Lastname, or Dear Dr. Lastname. I absolutely LOATHE the following, and I will correct you if you do it: Dear Ms. Lastname, Dear Mrs. Lastname. In other words, informality is fine, but please don't give me a demotion. I worked hard for that PhD.

Is it true that if you can't network and don't have social skills than it is unlikely you will get a postdoc or a job even if you are a genius in your field? So I have heard from people in Academia that networking is vital to getting a job or postdoc in Academia or even a PhD. If you do not know well-renowned scientists then you are out of luck. Therefore, advanced social skills and some oiling/charisma is important. If you don't have those then even if you are the next Einstein you would probably not even get a PhD or postdoc let alone a job. Can someone confirm whether this is true and to what extent?

I think there's a huge gap between "having some social skills" and "advanced social skills/oiling" being needed. Academia is about the work, but it's also a people-based field, especially in many of the sciences. You need to be able to work with peers on committees and across the university, develop collaborations, manage a group of workers, and interface with students. You're also hired into a position where you'll be in close proximity with the same co-workers a lot, so being able to at the very least not be a drain during those interactions is hugely important. Do you need to be the most charismatic person around? No. But you do need to have some social skills and have more positive than negative interactions with those around you.

For those of you with a PhD, what's on your business card? Are you Dr NAME, or NAME, PhD? I am a relatively recent PhD graduate and work for a not for profit research institute in the public health sector in Australia. On my business card I currently put my PhD as a post-nominal (i.e. NAME, PhD) instead of as an honorific (i.e. Dr NAME). I was recently approached by our head of communications asking to explain/justify why I chose not to put the Dr title on my business card or email signature. My reasons are a bit vague but include elements of not wanting to be mistaken for a clinician (as I do work in the health sector) and not wanting to sound pretentious. I should note that I do put Dr NAME when I am writing about myself (like in my bio for talks), just not in my email signature or on my business card. His question got me thinking about what the norm is for PhD holders out there, especially those without additional honorifics like 'Professor'. So my question to all of you PhD holders is what do you refer to yourself as on your business card/email signature?

On a business card, I've never seen anyone do anything other than: > Name, PhD > Job Title > Organization > Contact info That way, it's not ambiguous as to what your degree is, plus people sometimes have additional certifications, affiliations, or degrees beyond their PhD. However, if I'm writing about myself in a bio sketch or some sort of official work paperwork, I always refer to myself as "Dr. Lastname."

[Addressed towards professors/TAs] Question about academic integry Hello /r/AskAcademia, Recently in one of my classes I took an online moodle quiz with a friend. We started the quiz at the same time and worked together on this quiz in order to fully understand the material and get the most amount of correct answers. At the time I had no idea that this was forbidden, as in every other class in my life it was actually encouraged to work together on the moodle quiz/homework assignments. Apparently, in the syllabus for this class it states that this professor considers working together on the quiz to be a form of cheating. When I re-read the syllabus I literally had a mini-panic attack. The idea that I had cheated scared me shitless, especially since I had always dreamed of going to graduate school and then going into research. Several hours after taking the online quiz, I sat down with my friend and wrote up an email to the professor admitting what we had done. In addition to this we expressed our sincere regret for working together on the quiz and that it was a stupid mistake on our part. We also asked for leniency in his punishment. We sent this email proactively, before the professor had caught us. The quiz is worth roughly between 0.5-1.5% of our final grade for the course (if that makes a difference). My question is, did I do the right thing? My dream is to go to graduate school for my subject and eventually go work as a researcher in my field. I already have a publication under review in a journal, and am also worried that the reviewers for the paper in the journal could see my school record for cheating on the moodle quiz and reject it/remove me as an author because of this. I feel like I could have just ruined my life for a HW assignment worth basically nothing, because I glanced over the syllabus slides originally. Some of my other friends told me that I was an idiot for doing this proactively and I should have just waited and hoped that the professor didn't notice what I had done. I have already sent the email, so now all I can do is wait for the professor to reply. Was this the right thing to do? Do you think that the professor will be lenient and just let us take a 0% for the assignment instead of putting an "academic integrity violation" on our transcripts? Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I can't predict what your professor will do, but: I already have a publication under review in a journal, and am also worried that the reviewers for the paper in the journal could see my school record for cheating on the Moodle quiz and reject it/remove me as an author because of this. This won't happen. First, the publication won't know and wouldn't care. Second, it would violate academic ethics to remove you as an author as some sort of punishment: if you meet the standards to be an author, you still meet the standards even if the journal thinks you're a bad person. (Which, to be clear, they won't.) My dream is to go to graduate school for my subject and eventually go to work as a researcher in my field. Even in the worst-case scenario, where your professor decides to treat this as harshly as possible, it's not going to prevent you from getting into graduate school. There's a significant chance it won't make it to a place in your transcript where a grad school can see it, but even if it does, it's the sort of thing you explain in your personal statement (or, ideally, get a recommender to explain). It could conceivably be a small minus which might tip a very close decision, but if you're a strong candidate for a place, it's unlikely to change their mind. (And even that is the worst-case scenario, which only happens if the professor really wants to nail you to the wall for it, which is significantly less likely given that you proactively contacted them and explained.) Incidentally, the fact that you gave the explanation *before* getting caught is a *huge* boon to your credibility. It looks a lot better than if you'd waited to get caught and then given that explanation.

Professor received an inappropriate reference letter request for me - how to handle this situation? Hi all, I recently realized I am involved in a professionalism mishap and am looking for advice on how to proceed. I am a first-year medical student. During lecture yesterday, the classmate I was sitting beside jokingly took my computer and started filling out an application to a Caribbean medical school under my name. The computer screen was in my field of view while he was doing this, but I was not paying close attention to the screen. While he did not submit the application, he did fill out - amongst other sections - a Reference Letter Request section. He input the actual e-mail of my undergraduate thesis PI (a professor whose lab I worked in last school year). I only learned of this earlier today, when I logged onto the portal to try and close my account. I became concerned that the professor had received a reference letter request. To test this, I input my own email in the reference letter field to see if reference requests are sent even if the full application form is not submitted. As it turns out, the reference requests ARE sent, so this professor did receive a reference letter request from me. This professor knows that I am already in medical school. I feel it is inappropriate and unprofessional that he received an unexpected reference letter request for a Caribbean medical school when I am already in medical school. I would like to ensure he does not waste time needlessly writing a letter, and apologize for the mishap. How should I reach out to my professor? Should I e-mail him just explaining the situation and apologizing? Should I get my classmate to e-mail him with me CC'd? Or some other course of action? **TL;DR:** I am a medical student. A classmate inadvertently sent a reference letter request on my behalf to my undergraduate thesis PI, asking for a reference to a Caribbean medical school. This PI knows that I am already enrolled in medical school. How should I reach out to the PI and explain this situation?

I'd send him an email and tell him the truth. Is it embarrassing? Yeah, a little. But it's one of those things that will soon be forgotten once you get through it. P.S.: What an asshole move by your classmate.

Currently thinking of dropping out of PhD As the title states, I am seriously considering dropping out of my bio PhD program and just apply to consulting jobs. I realize how stereotypical that sounds, but I just do not see myself completing this degree. I am not even one semester into my program and I am feeling quite confident that this is not what I want to be doing for the next several years and beyond. I got into my program straight out of undergrad and I barely knew what I was getting into. I learned about prelims, dissertation, rotations, etc. at my orientation for this program. The reason I chose PhD during my undergrad was because I was a bio major who dropped Pre-med. I did not know what else I could pursue without disappointing my family. I saw PhD as the most obvious answer at the time because I would have had an "easy-in" because of my PI at the time (he is a well-known professor in his area of research). When I was writing my essays for the four schools I applied to, I faked my reasonings as to why I wanted this degree. I just took what I heard from others and put it into my essays. I even remember going to my professor's office nearly in tears because I never felt the "passion" for science that he always talked about. I thought that I could just ride this wave until I got in and maybe figure it out from there. Well, I got to school and met my wonderful cohort. They are the brightest individuals I have ever met. I am so grateful for them, but I realized how passionate they are about the science they are doing. Each conversation I have with them makes me think of why I am even here. Are these reasons valid? Am I making the right choice to drop out? I know it is not a matter of under/poor performance because my grades and lab work have been fine. I am just extremely unhappy and feel like I am not pursuing this degree for myself.

Yeah, don't do it. PhDs are hard enough when they are what you want to do. If you have serious doubts now, it's not going to get easier. The only thing is, what are your chances of doing consultancy straight out of a degree? I'd test the waters a little first before quitting.

How does field affect salary? Do universities pay professors or certain fields more than others. For example, since computer science is such a lucrative field outside of academia, would computer science professors get paid more than a professor of another field?

This depends on the school. I teach at a school where the faculty have voted as a group to have even salaries across the board—pay is determined only by years of service and rank, not by field at all. I interviewed at several other places where this was the case as well. It means the pay in my field is a bit lower than I'd otherwise get, but the pay for a lot of colleagues is higher, and the equality is important to me.

Which math topics and how good do you need to be in them in order to do a PhD in Economics? I was wondering, for someone who wants to do a PhD in Economics, which math topics should they be able to handle? How good do they need to be in those type of math topics? I hear that if you are not good in a certain type of math then you will inevitably fail a PhD in Economics.

I took linear algebra, differential equations, calculus through III, and baby statistics before enrolling in my PhD program. This was just barely enough math to squeak through my first year. I wish that I'd taken real analysis and maybe mathematical statistics.

How do you search for state of the art papers? I am searching for a state of the art paper on the topic multiclass classification. What I am doing is searching it on Google Scholar and then from the results I check whether the journal or the conference where the paper has been published is an A\* conference or not. I am not sure whether it is the best way to do it or not. How do you search for the state of the art paper on a topic?

You read them. Honestly, your approach is pretty terrible. The best journals don't always output the best papers—Psych Science, for example, has been publishing some poor quality work this year. You don't have retractions on good papers. Same for conferences. Yes, checking by citation count is a basic way, but then you're not getting state-of-the-art, you're getting seminal for the most part (unless you limit the years). Google for the most part already sorts by citations. 'State of the art' is a stupid phrase because research is so heavily broken up that even people who all go to the same conference would probably argue over what 'state-of-the-art' paper is this year. The only other thought would be to look for Paper of the Year awards, but even then, you're finding one paper, judged by a very small group of people.

I'd like to do a PhD but I don't feel I know enough. ... Hi. I've done an MSc. I really enjoyed it. It was for fun, and I'm bored now, so I'd like to do more. I'm in UK, looking at sites in UK, and EU. A lot of the PhD titles listed look interesting but I don't feel like I know enough. My gf, who has a doctorate keeps saying that that's the point - I'll have to learn new stuff. Can anyone advise? And what can I do to help myself? I enjoy researching, but I prefer doing courses/lectures at a physical university. Thanks.

Nobody knows enough. Part of a PhD is realizing that nobody knows everything. I once asked my professor about something theoretical. He said he didn't know and told me to look for papers. I looked for papers, read them, found nothing, and told him there was no answer in the papers. Then I realized that this is my research topic.

Can I reach out to an academic? Hi! I’m a current graduate student and while reading a recent paper I realized that the author has a very similar take on a niche theory. I’m not in the process of writing my own paper yet or anything, but would it be weird if I sent an email to the author and asked to set up a meeting to talk about the theory? Even if they don’t respond, is that a normal thing to do? I clearly am new to the networking thing and need all the help I can get. Thanks.

You really don't have anything to lose by emailing the researcher. However, I'd recommend having some specific thoughts in mind rather than just an aimless discussion. I'm quite sure the researcher's thoughts are clearly laid out in the paper, meaning that any "discussion" would simply be a repetition of what the paper already contains. You should ask questions that go beyond the literature, such as, "How does your theory on X relate to blah blah blah?" Good luck.