text stringlengths 1 1k | source stringlengths 51 77 |
|---|---|
<p><a href="http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/process/long.html" rel="noreferrer">This</a> might help or <a href="http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/long/visa1.html" rel="noreferrer">this.</a> Here is the crux of the information:</p>
<p>The period of stay is quoted as 3 years/1 year with the following documents needed:</p>
<pre><code>Passport
One visa application form (nationals of Russia or NIS countries need to submit two visa application forms)
One photograph (nationals of Russia or NIS countries need to submit two photographs)
Certificate of Eligibility (Note) - the original and one copy
</code></pre>
<p>This visa applied for <strong>Long-term stay</strong> for the following occupations:</p>
<p>Working visa: professor, artist, religious activities, journalist, investor/business manager, legal/accounting services, medical services, researcher, instructor, engineer, specialist in humanities/International Services</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>The algorithm for obtaining the visa is given on <a href="http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/process/long.html" rel="noreferrer">the first link I added</a>.
<img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/31niR.gif" alt="Algorithm"></p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>One of the best resources for jobs in computational chemistry (not limited to PhD level positions) is the job section of the <a href="http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/a/jobs/index.shtml" rel="nofollow">Computational Chemistry List</a>.</p>
<p>Another place where I've regularly seen relevant postings is the <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Computational-Chemists-94648" rel="nofollow">"Computational Chemists" group on LinkedIn</a>.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>If your institution has a subscription to Journal Citation Reports (JCR), you can check it there. Try this URL:</p>
<p><a href="https://jcr.clarivate.com" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://jcr.clarivate.com</a></p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>There is a list at <a href="http://www.sciencegateway.org/rank/index.html">Science Gateway</a>.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Apart from the ones already mentioned there are two excellent open access options.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eigenfactor.org/">Eigenfactor</a> is quite authoritative, and depending on field its metrics may carry the same weight as the Reuters stuff. They also offer the ISI metric (impact factor)using the exact same formula. You can search by ISSN, journal names, discipline etc.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>However when I make my own decision on an appropriate journal to target for publishing my articles, then I use <a href="http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php">SCImago Journal & Country Rank</a>. They have a wide variety of metrics, which include upcoming ones like H-index, the traditional impact factor, and other tweaked versions of the same. One of most useful functions on Scimago is the ability to compare a set of journals using a graph format and any metric that you desire. This can be exceptionally helpful in identifying the prestigious dinosaurs and the new but cutting edge journals. Placing your article is half the game, so this is incredibly useful.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>That said, this site does not appear to have the same level of authority. So, while it is good for one to get a good feel of the quality of a journal, it doesn't carry the same authority in a formal evaluation as Eigenfactor or ISI. Plus, if I understand correctly, their database goes back only up to 1996, though their coverage of even lesser known journals is comprehensive. This would make it difficult to judge the impact of an article published way back (but for older articles, citations are the standard measure anyway).</p>
<p>I also feel it is a shame to be paying to access impact factor statistics. Even if you cannot publish open access, at least the rent seeking involved in paying for the ISI rankings can be avoided by using the open access rankings.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3 - chunk idx 2 |
<p>This is because, in the U.S. as in many other countries (like Canada), Engineering is a regulated profession, like medicine and law. To call yourself an engineer, or to perform certain 'engineering' tasks, you need to be accredited (or registered or ..., name changes by country) to do so.</p>
<p>They care for the same reason that they want lawyers that have passed their bar exam to teach law, etc.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>There are 2 major theories about credentials: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital">human capital theory</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory">signaling theory</a>. Under HCT, a license (such as a PE) shows that you have accumulated a credible amount of knowledge (you must graduate from an accredited engineering school) and experience (you need to have worked for 4 years after your bachelors to sit for the PE exam). Under signalling theory, the PE shows that you have done what it takes to legally call yourself an engineer. One interesting comparison of the differences of HCT and ST is <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/02/the_career_cons.html">The Career Consequences of Failing versus Forgetting</a>. You may know just as much as another person, but the one of you that passes some hurdle signals to prospective employers that the hurdle passer is the better candidate. This is because hiring a person is trying to predict future | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4 - chunk idx 0 |
hurdle signals to prospective employers that the hurdle passer is the better candidate. This is because hiring a person is trying to predict future behavior/success with limited information, and many people use signals as heuristics. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>You will also find out that universities hire people who have degrees. A cynical view is that they have a vested interest in maintaining the supply of people who get degrees. A signalling theory viewpoint is that universities think degrees are important enough that they only hire teachers who have them. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4 - chunk idx 2 |
<p>In many fields of engineering, your working career will be very short if you do not pass your PE. Civil is one such. Other engineering fields, such as Electrical (which is mine), typically have state exemptions for manufacturing, so very few EEs take their PE. When I was younger, I was quite opposed to licensure. Now, I see it as a way to distinguish myself from other candidates. One interesting blog post that inspired me to sit for my PE exam is <a href="http://brucefwebster.com/2008/11/18/is-it-work-true-engineering-or-just-plumbing/">this one</a>. Another is a <a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/directory/rivera_lauren.aspx">dissertation</a> (which is not online) titled <em>"Hiring and Inequality in Elite Professional Service Firms".</em></p>
<p>My advice is to take your EIT and PE exams as soon as practical. Some US universities require you to take your EIT exam during your senior year (as in they won't issue your diploma without passing it). </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4 - chunk idx 3 |
<p>Disclaimer: I am registered to take the PE exam this April. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4 - chunk idx 4 |
<p>Not necessarily, but this is to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. You can have an idea of which policies have been adopted by which publishers/journals by having a look at <a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the webpage of Sherpa/Romeo</a>.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>You are generally allowed to publish even in a non-open access journal even if a pre-print is on the arXiv. Most journal copyright agreements explicitly allow the authors to post the article online. Here's an example of a fairly generous one:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ASL hereby grants to the Author the non-exclusive right to reproduce the Article, to create
derivative works based upon the Article, and to distribute and display the Article and any such derivative
work by any means and in any media, provided the provisions of clause (3) below are met. The Author may
sub-license any publisher or other third party to exercise those rights.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and a less generous one which still allows the author to post a copy online:</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>and a less generous one which still allows the author to post a copy online:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I understand that I retain or am hereby granted (without the need to obtain further permission) rights to use certain versions of the Article for certain
scholarly purposes, as described and defined below (“Retained Rights”), and that no rights in patents, trademarks or other intellectual property rights
are transferred to the journal. </p>
<p>The Retained Rights include the right to use the Pre-print or Accepted Authors Manuscript for Personal Use, Internal Institutional Use and for
Scholarly Posting; and the Published Journal Article for Personal Use and Internal Institutional Use.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I've seen examples where the journal actually did some genuine copyediting beyond what the referee did where the author wasn't allowed to post the version that benefited from the copyediting, but could still post the earlier version.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>So, for most journals, the answer is that you're allowed to post the article online because it's specifically allowed by the document they ask you to sign. But it is possible that posting on the arxiv will rule out particular journals that have more restrictive policies.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7 - chunk idx 2 |
<p>The Ingelfinger rule is generally disregarded now by scientific publishers. F1000 has done a lot of research into this for their poster repository. Of the few notable publishers who do suggest they do not allow preprints, blood was singled out as apparently they said they wouldn't allow it but appeared to have no way of checking this and so do allow it, albeit by default. The following 2 links from the embargo watch blog describe the story:</p>
<p><a href="http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/faculty-of-1000-strikes-a-blow-against-the-ingelfinger-rule/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Faculty of 1000 strikes a blow against the Ingelfinger Rule</a></p>
<p><a href="http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/f1000-vs-ingelfinger-part-two-blood-and-the-journal-of-proteome-research-respond/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">F1000 vs. Ingelfinger, part two: Blood and The Journal of Proteome Research respond</a></p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>You should ask senior people in your field, or look at the polies and publishing agreements of journals you care about.</p>
<p>In math, every major journal will accept submissions of papers that have previously been posted to the arXiv. (I'm pretty sure that <em>every</em> journal will, but I suppose I can't rule out some obscure exception. If any journal tried to enforce a policy against submitting papers that were on the arXiv, there would be a big uproar and they would have no choice but to allow it.) I believe the same is true in physics and CS.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>But keep in mind that this may vary between fields. For example, my understanding is that the American Chemical Society has particularly draconian copyright and dissemination policies, and that they may object to arXiv posting. They are on the wrong side of history, but it doesn't mean they can't still cause trouble. And then there are journals like Science, with embargo policies and corresponding rules about what constitutes prior distribution.</p>
<p>So the answer is that this is very simple if you're in a field in which the arXiv has become widespread, but much more subtle otherwise.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>A standard workaround is that you post a draft of your paper on the arxiv and assign the copyright in the final version to the journal. You can't update the arxiv with your final version, but the journal publishers will only be able to enforce their copyright on those parts of the final version which are not already present in the arxiv prior art.</p>
<p>Since you will almost inevitably make some revisions as part of the submission process, you don't have to explicitly plan to leave anything out of the arxiv version.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7 - chunk idx 0 |
<p><a href="https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/10/12">This answer to a related question</a> points to <a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/</a>, which allows you to look up the policy of specific journals.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8 - chunk idx 0 |
<p><a href="http://www.doaj.org/">Directory of open access journals</a> is the most comprehensive listing for the open access ones, so if you find a journal there, it's open. If not, then you need further research. Though usually clicking on an article link should be sufficient.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Although just a start, we had a "journal club" over at the stats.se site on such bibliometrics, and had a chat over this particular article;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Arnold, Douglas N. & Kristine K. Fowler. 2011. Nefarious Numbers.
<em>Notices of the AMS</em> 58(3): 434-437. <a href="http://www.ams.org/notices/201103/rtx110300434p.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PDF link from publisher</a></p>
<p>Abstract from initial <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0278" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ArXiv print</a>:</p>
<p>We investigate the journal impact factor, focusing on the applied
mathematics category. We discuss impact factor manipulation and
demonstrate that the impact factor gives an inaccurate view of journal
quality, which is poorly correlated with expert opinion.</p>
</blockquote> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>As far as scientific assessments the authors in the above article are pretty negative of such rankings, and give a few examples of editors having citation practices that intentionally inflate their journals rankings.</p>
<p>I'm sure more literature on the topic exists than this though (so I look forward to any other suggestions).</p>
<hr>
<p>Unfortunately the transcript from the chat is currently not linked to in the <a href="https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/a/836/1036">applicable thread</a> on meta stats. But I will update here if it becomes available.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>Johan Bollen and Herbert van de Sompels are two researchers to follow in this area. Bollen did an <a href="http://www.mendeley.com/research/principal-component-analysis-39-scientific-impact-measures/">analysis of 39 different citation-based metrics</a> which is a good place to start. However, it's crucial to note that there are serious errors in trying to use citation-counting methods as some sort of ground truth. Citation counting is problematic because:</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13 - chunk idx 0 |
<ul>
<li>Different fields have different citation practices. In biology it's common to have 10 or more authors on one paper, whereas in math you often have only one or two.</li>
<li>Citations take a long time to accumulate, penalizing early-stage researchers.</li>
<li>Citations only tell part of the story, leaving out the useful contributions made by researchers in the form of code written and datasets released.</li>
<li>Citations often <a href="http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/57689/">mutate</a> over time.</li>
</ul> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>It's now possible to get more information about a paper than just who cited it, and it's possible to get this information before several years have passed and before the information about the impact of the paper becomes old and less useful. The <a href="http://alm.plos.org">Public Library of Science</a> makes detailed article-level metrics available and <a href="http://dev.mendeley.com">Mendeley</a> has an API from which you can collect real-time data about how many readers a paper has, as well as social metadata such as tags and annotations and reader demographics. These metrics are being consumed by services such as <a href="http://total-impact.org">Total Impact</a> and combined with data from Github, Twitter, and traditional citation metrics. My bet is that if you're looking for a meaningful set of measures, you're going to find it in these richer sets of aggregated data.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13 - chunk idx 2 |
<p>You will find details on the evaluation process in the Guide for Applicants. The evaluators are experts (=researchers) in the field. They will be matched to the proposal according to their profile and to the abstract and keywords. They will for sure be in the general research area, but might not be in the exact same field of the proposal. It is (at least, officially) not possible to find out who evaluated the proposal afterwards, but you can find a list of former evaluators here:</p>
<p><a href="http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/experts_en.html">http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/experts_en.html</a></p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>May I ask why you chose an MSc instead of a PhD? What is your career goal? I don't mean to imply one is better than the other. If you are going to spend a lot of money and time, it should be well-spent. </p>
<p>In some places, like the UK, not much more time is needed to get a PhD beyond an MSc. In the U.S., PhD's in the sciences are usually completely funded. Per badp this seems not to be the case in Italy. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>For either an MSc or PHD I suggest looking at the career paths of former graduates of that lab. This is something I wish someone had told me when I entered <em>my</em> lab. <strong>The charisma of the lab boss or excellence of the equipment are meaningless if, after 2-3 years, you can't move on as you hoped.</strong> Trace the career path of the last few graduates - from MSc all the way to how many wanted to and got faculty positions and how long it took them. In my experience what you do is much less important that who you know, which comes from getting into the right environment.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>As you are presumably pursuing this degree so you can eventually work in industry, I would consider the following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Find out which programs are more highly regarded in industry.</li>
<li>Consider the success rates of each university in helping their graduates find employment; this can vary significantly from institution to institution.</li>
<li>Consider the extra-curricular aspects; what does each program's city have to offer? Programs with ties to local industry may help you obtain some useful internship experience.</li>
</ul> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>I published a book myself, and know many collegues who published books, and the academic institution never claimed any part from the royalties. This is for sure the case in Germany, Hungary, Austria and Italy.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>In general, no. (This is based on my experience in the US.) One's employing institution does not have any claim on royalties from books written while a student or faculty member. However, it's possible that there might be exceptions: for example, sometimes a university may help financially in the publication of a book, and this might be reflected in the publication contract. Of course, in such circumstances the book is not expected to make any money, which is why the university is helping out in the first place. </p>
<p>A related and very common phenomenon is for the publisher to hold the copyright on an academic title. My own book is like this. I am entitled to royalties, but the press holds the copyright for some defined period. Again, this is due to the terrible economics of publishing academic monographs. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>There have been cases where universities have tried to assert very broad rights over the intellectual property of their faculty employees (e.g., lecture notes as well as books, etc), but I think these have generally failed. It does still happen: <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Faculty-Cry-Foul-Over/130800/?key=HG13cFRsbXIVN35gZGlFZzkBbHM/NUp6ZHdOY30ibl1WEA==">here's an example</a> where the University of Louisiana is trying to broadly claim rights to scholarly output, including royalties from books. These sweeping assertions of rights have sometimes been motivated by the desire of administrators to claim a share of some of the genuinely lucrative things now produced by some university researchers, such as patentable biotechnologies, with books caught up in the net but not really directly targeted. Patents are an area with real money at stake, where the university's investment (in laboratory space and so on) is much higher, and where university claims on income from work done | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21 - chunk idx 1 |
at stake, where the university's investment (in laboratory space and so on) is much higher, and where university claims on income from work done while employed are strongly and successfully asserted. Books, not so much.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21 - chunk idx 2 |
<p>Perhaps you should check with your own institution as some universities (at least in the UK) have a policy on this issue. Also your employment contract might already cover this. For example, in several UK universities the copyright of course notes and lecture notes lecturers create often belong to the institution, not the individual lecturer. And the same might apply to books they write unless individually negotiated.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>I have no idea how you'd find hard data on the program itself and its results, but as an idle musing I checked how many full time faculty members in the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health's Dept. of Epidemiology held an MD/PhD or DrPH. The department was chosen as a very good department in a very good school with a strong medical school that I'm not affiliated with.</p>
<p>Ten of the 94 listed faculty members were MD/PhD or DrPH's. Little under 11% of the faculty. And that's not including other possible "physician scientists" like MD/MPH degree holders...if you do that the number rises to 23 faculty members with an MD degree in a related, but non-clinical research department. Nearly a quarter of the faculty total.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Of course, this is only a very crude proxy for how many physician-scientists pursue academic tracks, and even the representation of clinician-scientists in research departments will likely vary wildly by said department. That being said, I've met a considerable number of them in my graduate school career, either entirely in academic settings, or balancing research with practice. It's absolutely a viable path, though not an easy one.</p>
<p>As another data point, here is the list of alumni for the UNC School of Medicine's MD/PhD program: <a href="http://www.med.unc.edu/mdphd/fps/alumni-1" rel="noreferrer">http://www.med.unc.edu/mdphd/fps/alumni-1</a> . That should give you a decent glimpse at where those particular graduates go - it looks like a fair number ended up in research or hybrid positions.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>I'm a student enrolled in a MD/PhD program in Canada. I don't know about NIH very well, but our experience here is that it is very difficult to continue research. I agree with eykanal: it takes a lot to be a great clinician (and being a mediocre clinician is very hard on one's conscience). 50%+ of students rethink their decision during their first year of medicine and do not begin the PhD portion of the program. Only those who begin 80/20 in terms of devolution (80 research, 20 clinician) seem to be able to continue the research path, with considerable sacrifice of their clinical skills (fewer clinical elective during both medical school and residency), as well as many more years of education. </p>
<p>Once done, however, the career path in academic medicine is relatively good. The PhD really helps with those jobs and their attendant excitement and opportunities, although they often pay significantly lower than a pure clinican job. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>I know that in the States, the culture of MD/PhD's is more pronounced than in Canada, since there's a massive amount of NIH funds. I heard that nearly a quarter of the class in U of Pennsylvania at least begin as MD/PhD's (don't quote me). Dropping out of the PhD is harder, because you have to give up your funding. I expect that many of them are able to complete the program, but few manage to continue in the research path.</p>
<p>Many of the professors who are MD and PhD's often complete their PhD separately from the MD - they either had it before the MD or got it afterwards. Materially, it's a more difficult path, with less funding and guarantees, but there's less room to regret and it's easier to cut one's losses, since it's 2 big decisions, not 1.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>I think <a href="http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/CareerComparisons/SalaryComparisons.aspx">this page</a> has what you are looking for. As far as I can tell (e.g. for France) the numbers are fine.</p>
<p>However, we should keep in mind that the comparison can be made difficult. For instance, "full professor" is not an actual rank in french academia. You are either a "maitre de conférences" (roughly equivalent to assistant prof. position to "junior" associate prof.), then "professeur des universités" (roughly from more senior associate prof. to full prof.).</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28 - chunk idx 0 |
<p><a href="http://www.glassdoor.com/">http://www.glassdoor.com/</a> works by getting anonymous information from users and sharing it. It is really vast and accurate as far as I am aware.</p>
<p>Examples:
TA: Brigham Young University $10.41/hour
Professor: University of Warwick: £103/year-£112/year</p>
<p>You must only Select Salaries on the dropdown menu, add a description or phrase of the position and/or location.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>As far as I know, the translation is up to the universities who do the conversion. I think that it is unlikely that there are is one set of guidelines as even within a country not all universities have necessarily the same ranking systems.</p>
<p>I have found <a href="http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.sowi.rub.de/mam/images/auslandsstudium/umrechnungstabelle_noten.pdf&rct=j&sa=U&ei=lQM8T82XBOnJ0QW7neVs&ved=0CCQQFjAE&q=erasmus+grade+translation&usg=AFQjCNF1ed-eRBTDXIhteYRf-tD1dSnkIw" rel="noreferrer">this table</a> on Google though that gives some idea on what grades are roughly equivalent.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>From what I've heard, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOEFL">TOEFL</a> is well recognised. </p>
<p>That being said, once you get your PhD, I don't think people ask for some English certifications (at least, I've never been asked to, and I'm not a native speaker). I guess your publications and the interview in English should be enough to see if you're able to communicate in English. </p>
<p>EDIT List of <a href="http://www.ets.org/toefl/ibt/about/who_accepts_scores">who accepts the TOEFL</a>.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Well, there is no universal advice. In general, you should adopt the local policy. If it is really the expectation, then you should go. Try to ask your younger colleagues. </p>
<p>Of course there is an other aspect: usually you never know in advance whether the talk will be good and inspiring or not. Usually it is not, but sometimes there is a surprise. Most of us go to these seminars hoping for a miracle. Unfortunately, in most cases the talks are simply bad.</p>
<p>Finally, there is also the argument that later you will be also giving talks on similar seminars. It is somehow sad if nobody except your fellow buddy listens to your talk.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>I would say that you should always go to seminar, unless you have some very compelling reason not to go (you are away, you are working on an experiment, you are trying to finish writing your thesis, etc.). </p>
<p>There are four reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>Scientific courtesy. To travel somewhere and give a talk to the 10 people who show up (5 of whom you already knew) is really irritating. </li>
<li>Good or bad -- you learn something about presentation. Even if you say "wow, I should never do that in a talk" your hour has been well spent.</li>
<li>You get perspective. You never know when something that someone says will make you see your own work in a different context. </li>
<li>The speaker may someday be interviewing you for a job. It's better to be able to say "I heard your seminar" than "Oh, sorry, I missed your seminar when you visited."</li>
</ol> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39 - chunk idx 0 |
<h2>Try to always go.</h2>
<p>If you're a first/second year grad student, go because you have to.</p>
<p>If you're a third/fourth year grad student, go to learn about disciplines and topics other than yours.</p>
<p>If you're a fifth+ year grad student, go to network.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Let's ask another question: is there at least one good reason not to go at the seminars?</p>
<ul>
<li>Time consumption: except if you have a 1 hour seminar each day, you can probably afford the time loss due to the seminar. BTW, it it a time loss only if you go and don't speak to anybody, don't ask questions and don't try to understand a little piece of what is presented.</li>
<li>It is not profitable: really? A lot of research results start with ideas from elsewhere. Of course, it can be different for earth sciences. Even if you don't see something directly useful, you will probably be confronted to different ways of thinking.</li>
<li>"I am going to the seminars with my laptop/smartphone, people will think I am rude": and they will be right if you use your laptop for other things that taking notes about the talk. To be fair, this can be considered OK to go with your laptop for working during the talk if your the dean, or the head of the department...</li>
</ul> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Well, in fact I cannot see good reasons not to go, except if it takes you 5+ hours a week...</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>Opinions on others may depend on many factors. Some people may not care at all (or even does not notice), but generally not attending seminars may be viewed as</p>
<ul>
<li>lack of commitment,</li>
<li>lack of genuine interest in research by other people and in other fields,</li>
<li>general laziness,</li>
<li>lack of respect for work by other people,</li>
<li>you not feeling being a part of the department.</li>
</ul>
<p>And while you may care less about the opinion of your colleagues, the opinion of your advisor may matter a lot.</p>
<p>If everyone knows that a certain seminar is of very poor quality, perhaps the reaction may be not so severe. However, I guess here it is not the case:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Don't ask me the difference between a protein and an amino acid; I have no idea!</p>
</blockquote> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39 - chunk idx 0 |
<blockquote>
<p>Don't ask me the difference between a protein and an amino acid; I have no idea!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is a sign that even more that you should the seminar. Not knowing sth simple - check wikipedia or ask your friends. Not knowing something more advanced - ask the lecturer (as (s)he is there exactly to explain you, among the others, a certain topic).</p>
<p><strong>Comment:</strong></p>
<p>for some reason other answers do not cover the question, which was spelled out three times:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Will people judge me negatively for skipping department seminars?</p>
<p>Do you look down on colleagues who sometimes skip out on talks far outside their expertise?</p>
<p>Is skipping an event like this better or worse than showing up but discreetly reclaiming time during bad talks by studying on a smartphone?</p>
</blockquote> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>Part of being a grad student is politics. Skipping out on seminars signals to the presenter that you are not interested (which is probably true). Depending on the personality of the person, it may make them an enemy. In academic politics, revenge is a dish served cold. </p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Is skipping an event like this better or worse than showing up but discreetly reclaiming time during bad talks by studying on a smartphone?</em> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>If the presenter is an older person, screwing around with your cell phone will be perceived as terribly disrespectful, and much worse than not showing up at all. </p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>But I'm worried that other people will think I'm being a slacker as a result.</em> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The perception will come across more as "he is not one of us". That sort of attitude is the kiss of death when it comes to recommendations. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>The perception will come across more as "he is not one of us". That sort of attitude is the kiss of death when it comes to recommendations. </p>
<p>My advice is to suck it up and go to them. It is part of the cost of being a grad student. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/39 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>Beyond the h-index, I don't think there's any definitive parameters used in practice. However, some other common factors used to evaluate research faculty:</p>
<ul>
<li>Publication count</li>
<li>Quantity of funding</li>
<li>Number of invited talks & invited journal articles</li>
<li>Lab size</li>
</ul>
<p>Note that these apply to the fields I'm familiar with, neuroscience and engineering. I suspect that these answers will vary according to field.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>There's the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-index">g-index</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-b_index">h-b-index</a>. Another thing is (in conjunction with the number of publications) the number of coauthors, i.e. has somebody only worked with one group (perhaps at the same university) or have they collaborated with lots of people from different institutions.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>To add to other answers:</p>
<p>How often one publishes in the most prestigious general journals (e.g. <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/">Science</a> and <a href="http://www.nature.com/">Nature</a>) and most prestigious journals in their field (e.g. <a href="http://prl.aps.org/">Physical Review Letters</a>).</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>The h-index is common (and the g-index, which corrects for self-citation), as is the Journal Impact Factor. Johan Bollen has a <a href="http://www.mendeley.com/research/principal-component-analysis-39-scientific-impact-measures/">good review of the various metrics</a>.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>However, it's important to point out that all those measures are just different ways of counting citations. They don't account for things like code you've written or talks you've given and they can't address systematic bias in citation practices such as coercive citation or citation mutation. Also, any citation-counting metric will penalize younger researchers simply due to the time it takes to publish one paper and for other papers to get published citing yours. In order to keep academics from having to publish a paper just to describe some code they've written or a dataset they've accumulated, aggregators have been built to pull in these various metrics and consolidate them. <a href="http://total-impact.org">Total Impact</a> is a good example of such a system. The general field of study looking at incorporating these broader metrics is called #altmetrics, and you can find a collection of research on the topic <a | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42 - chunk idx 1 |
field of study looking at incorporating these broader metrics is called #altmetrics, and you can find a collection of research on the topic <a href="http://www.mendeley.com/groups/586171/altmetrics/">here</a>.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42 - chunk idx 2 |
<p>There are quite a few journals where you can publish theoretical work in this area. Here are a few suggestions (the distinction is based on my perception and knowledge of what they've published, I'll let others chip in if they disagree):</p>
<p>For more theoretical work:</p>
<ul>
<li>The <a href="http://www.computer.org/portal/web/tcbb" rel="nofollow">IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (TCBB)</a>.</li>
<li>The <a href="http://www.liebertpub.com/CMB" rel="nofollow">Journal of Computational Biology</a>.</li>
<li>The <a href="http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/journal/285" rel="nofollow">Journal of Mathematical Biology</a>.</li>
<li>The <a href="http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/journal/11538" rel="nofollow">Bulletin of Mathematical Biology</a></li>
</ul>
<p>For more applied work:</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/47 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>For more applied work:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/" rel="nofollow">Bioinformatics</a>.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcbioinformatics/" rel="nofollow">BMC Bioinformatics</a>. (open access)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.almob.org/" rel="nofollow">Algorithms for Molecular Biology</a>. (open access)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/home.action" rel="nofollow">PLoS Computational Biology</a>. (open access)</li>
</ul>
<p>This is not exhaustive of course, and I suggest you discuss these "candidates" with your collaborators.</p>
<p>EDIT: I marked some of them "open access" because they advertise(d) so. This does not mean that the others do not offer that option, you'll have to check.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/47 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>Since your work is in game theory and population biology, do not forget Springer's </p>
<p><em>Journal of Theoretical Ecology</em>. It's a newer journal (started in 2008) but already has an impact factor close to JTB, and has an open access option. Alan Hastings is the Editor in Chief of this journal (you'd have a hard time finding a more prominent figure in Theoretical Biology than him).</p>
<p>Unfortunately most journals in the subject don't have open access options (e.g. Mathematical Biosciences, Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, Ecological Modeling, Journal of Theoretical Population Biology, Journal of Theoretical Biology) </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/47 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Also don't forget Bio Journals, you can stick the more advanced math and proofs in an appendix, and often your work will get more exposure in these journals. I know <em>Proceedings of the Royal Society Part B</em>, <em>the American Naturalist</em>, <em>Journal of Applied Ecology</em> and <em>PLoS BIO</em> all have open access options and take modeling papers as long as the results are interesting from a biological perspective and aren't just a cool model that was fun to explore (a good intro and discussion is key for these journals as they all have very high impact factors).</p>
<p>If you prove things in your work also consider applied math journals like <em>Nonlinear Dynamics</em> (Springer) which has an open access option.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/47 - chunk idx 1 |
<p><em>This post refers to research in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields">STEM fields</a>, and may not be applicable to other research topics.</em></p>
<p>One of my biggest epiphanies in research came when I learned how to read a paper. Reading scientific publications is completely different from reading literature or news. At the beginning of your research career, you can expect to spend a full day (if not more) reading through a single 8-page paper. Some tips follow:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Most papers are divided into "Intro", "Methods", "Results", "Discussion". These are roughly broken down as follows:</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 0 |
<ul>
<li><strong>Intro</strong> - Read this for background. There will be nothing "new" in this section. You will find it <em>very</em> useful to read the intro section to as many papers as you can get your hands on. While you do this, you will become fairly depressed that so much research has already been done, and you will wonder what you can do to add to the field. Speak with your advisor, he has many good ideas.</li>
<li><strong>Methods</strong> - This will take you a VERY long time to read initially, because they go into ridiculous detail. They do this so that you, the researcher reading and interested in replicating their results, can do so. If you don't understand everything here at first, don't worry. NOTE: If you finish reading the methods section and still want to know how something worked, email the author! This is research; the guy who wrote the paper is likely another grad student/postdoc like you. He'd love to hear from you.</li> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 1 |
<li><p><strong>Results</strong> - This is the meat of the paper. Read this very carefully to find out what they found. Between this section and the methods section you will determine what went right, what went wrong, what is new, and what they should have done that they didn't that you can now research and publish and become a superstar.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 2 |
<p>When you cite a paper, you will be citing from this section. If you find yourself citing a paper based on something in the Intro, you're just citing another citation.</p></li>
<li><strong>Discussion</strong> - This is <em>the author's thoughts</em> on what the results mean. Take note of this; the author is using his or her expertise to interpret the results. If you disagree with something he or she says here, and you can back up your findings, more power to you.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><p>Most accomplished researchers don't actually read papers; they just read figures. A good paper will be completely in the figures. (This is particularly true in some biological sciences fields, less so elsewhere.)</p></li> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 3 |
<li>Take notes on the papers you read. Keep those notes. My method was to keep my notes in a 3-ring binder, put a little post-it tab with the author's name, and then put the paper in there as well with the notes, so each "tab" is my notes and the paper. You will read hundreds of papers during your academic career. You will want to remember what you've read.</li>
<li>This is a very arduous process, and the learning curve is steep. Don't be discouraged! Reading papers is a skill, and the more you read the more proficient at understanding them you'll become.</li>
</ul> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 4 |
<p>At the beginning read anything and everything (and take notes). You should always be reading something and writing something. The hardest part for most students in the sciences to get past is embracing the unknown. </p>
<p>You will probably feel the need to understand everything, right from the start. Unless you are exceptional, you probably will have to read the important papers several times. You are looking to develop a broad-scale understanding of your field. To know where your research fits in, you have to develop an understanding of where your field in. This takes time.</p>
<p>As time goes on, you'll pick and choose more carefully the papers you read closely. Often you can get the idea from just the abstract. If it sounds promising, then read on.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 0 |
<p><em>My experience is almost exclusively with mathematics papers, and applies little or not at all to other fields.</em></p>
<p>Much of eykanal's post applies to math as well, but one big difference is that math papers are much more varied in their structure, not having an actual experiment to tie them together. A good paper will generally explain its organization in the introduction, however.</p>
<p>One point worth emphasizing is that reading a paper from front to back, trying to understand everything at each step, is usually inefficient. The most common instance is that a paper often starts with definitions which may be hard to make sense of without understanding the theorems they're used in. It's generally more effective to skim the paper several times, trying to understand more and more with each pass.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Relatedly, you'll eventually pick up the skill of picking out the most interesting ideas from a paper without reading the whole thing. Early on, though, it's probably better to read things carefully; it's very easy to fool yourself into thinking you've understood something.</p>
<p>As to your main question, about breadth versus depth, your first priority has to be depth, because that's what you'll ultimately need to be able to do your own research and get your degree. But if you're learning enough to do that, you want as much breadth as possible. It actually gets harder and harder to learn completely new things as you get on in your career, even when there may be direct benefits to your research to do doing so. Laying the foundations of a broad understanding of your field while in graduate school will pay off later.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 1 |
<p><em>This is about my experience in computer engineering</em> </p>
<p>I found that reading for breadth was the more important approach. The area of research I was interested in was pretty fluffly and ill-defined (I thought I could make a difference by organizing it better), so that many relevant articles were categorized in totally different areas. This meant I had to have a hummingbird approach: flittering around, but drilling down when I found an important vein of data. I also kept a journal where I'd put a citation and a very brief summary of the article, so that I could come back and say "I think I read something about this last September" and then go look in an older journal. Today, I'd have my own wiki at home to keep track of this. I used to have my own "library" of PDFs that I got through university access, but that removable hard drive was stolen. </p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Is five pages of close reading per day enough?</em> </p>
</blockquote> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 0 |
<blockquote>
<p><em>Is five pages of close reading per day enough?</em> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you can stay consistently at 5 pages (or 1 article) every day, you will end up far ahead of other people who study only in spurts. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>I agree with Henry about breadth vs. depth. You'll ultimately be judged on depth, so that has to be your first priority. However, breadth is quite valuable too. Many breakthroughs have come by applying standard techniques from one area to a new area. </p>
<p>The $.02 I want to add is that <strong>not all reading is created equal</strong>. Particularly when you're learning a new topic, well-written exposition is invaluable (in large part because it's so rare). As you progress, you'll develop a better intuition for what's worth reading. But when you're early in your career, I strongly encourage you to ask your adviser (or more senior students) <strong>which papers and books you should be reading</strong>. Personally, I've slogged through many manuscripts mired in myopia before encountering enlightened, engaging exposition. ...and that has made all the difference.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>I personally think one should read both for breadth and depth. Read all sort of literature around your field, and a few outside your field. One can only come up with good ideas having a good general knowledge of science. When it comes to your own research area papers should be read carefully and critically to understand what is being done, how it is being done and if the interpretations and methods made and used really show that. As my PhD supervisor used to say, read atleast two papers a day even if you are busy with experiments. This gets easier as you go. For me in the first year it used to take a lot to time to read a paper. Towards the end, I was looking at the abstract, results/figures...if needed methods, and where confused check the discussion quickly to see how the authors explained their results. After a while, you rarely need to read the intro in your own field unless you want a refresher.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>I'll chime in with a quite different opinion (or maybe a related opinion phrased in a different way), which grew out of advising/supervising PhD students and post-docs: <strong>reading for depth is a job requirement, but reading for breadth is what will make you stand out</strong>.</p>
<p>As a PhD student, you are required to read in depth the papers that directly pertain to your particular subfield. A PhD is the process of becoming an expert in your discipline, and you cannot do that without mastering the minute details of it, which you will only learn by reading in depth the papers published (and attending conferences, asking questions, etc.).</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>However, though becoming an expert is what gets you your PhD, if you want to continue further in research (whether academic or R&D), you will need to be able <strong>to show a quick understanding of new problems, to make connections between concepts in various areas of research, and propose creative solutions</strong> to the problems you have identified. This requires a casual knowledge of a large variety of fields, which will be only acquired by reading a large breadth of topics.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/50 - chunk idx 1 |
<ol>
<li><p>According to the <a href="http://publicationethics.org/static/1999/1999pdf13.pdf">Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines on Good Publication Practice</a>, the term "redundant publication" is defined this way:</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 0 |
<blockquote>
<p>"Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions." In addition, it states: "(1) Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is required. (2) Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings does not preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of submission. (3) Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission. (4) At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers, even if in a different language, and similar papers in press." Note that (2) states that it is generally acceptable to present a paper in a conference and then later publish exactly the same paper in a journal, as long | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 1 |
as you mention to the editor that the paper has been publicly presented.</p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><p>According to the paper <a href="http://jme.bmj.com/content/35/6/348.full.pdf">Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics:
Results of an international survey</a>,</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 2 |
<blockquote>
<p>"Breaches of publication ethics such as plagiarism, data fabrication and redundant publication are recognised as forms of research misconduct that can undermine the scientific literature." It also stated that redundant publication is an unethical practice. Of 16 ethical issues studied, redundant publication had the highest severity (that is, it caused editors the most concern---more than plagiarism or data fabrication).</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ol> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 3 |
<p>Personally, I have no qualms with submitting the same <em>talk</em> to multiple conferences; however, in my field (Chemical Engineering), we don't really do conference proceedings. Therefore, it's not such a big deal to present a work more than once; it's being given to different audiences that might not otherwise see the work, and it's not going into the publication record multiple times, so there really aren't any ethical violations going on.</p>
<p>However, in a field where conference papers are required to give a talk, then ethical rules demand that you disclose if a paper has been accepted previously. If you've changed the material enough, or introduced enough new material, then it's a little bit more of a grey area. But it's still better to err on the side of caution than to get caught out.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Rather than asking what's acceptable, I think it's worthwhile to step back and think about the purpose of scientific publication. Your goal in publishing should be to disseminate useful ideas, not to create a publication record. If you have ten papers that are all very similar, it's hard for people to learn about your ideas because they won't have time to read all those papers. Just write one good one.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>There are a few things to keep in mind:</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 0 |
<ul>
<li>Submitted talks vs. invited talks. Many researchers will have given many talks on a subject, but if most of them are invited talks, the reason they're duplicates is because conference organizers have essentially <em>asked</em> for duplicates.</li>
<li>I'd argue it isn't ethical to submit the <em>same</em> presentation, but a topic is a wide ranging thing. Heck, even a single study has a lot of aspects to it, and many conference presentations have less content than a single paper. For example, you might have a presentation at one conference that's highly technical, another for a different audience that's more practical/applied, etc. Those are different talks.</li> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 1 |
<li>Consider what you want to get out of it. Unless your field is one of those where presentations trump papers or themselves generate papers (CS comes to mind), presentations aren't that big of a deal on a CV such that an extra one or two will really put you over the edge. In my field for example, everyone knows there's certain conferences that will essentially accept as many talks as they have spaces to fill (and they have <em>many</em> spaces to fill), so as long as your science isn't egregiously wrong, you're probably going to get in. What you do get out of that is good contacts, and good advice. If you keep repeating the same thing over and over, your return on "investment" starts to dive.</li> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 2 |
<li>If your talk is going to be spun into a paper via conference proceedings or the like, be doubly cautious, and make sure if you are double-dipping in an experiment or the like that the resulting <em>papers</em> are clearly different as well. I don't know anyone who doesn't frown on duplicated papers, and more than one venue that will smack you down hard for trying to play a game like that.</li>
</ul> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/51 - chunk idx 3 |
<blockquote>
<p>Do you have to be extraordinary for a department to hire you over an equally qualified citizen?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That really depends on the search criteria. If the criteria specifically calls for international experience—and many jobs around the world now do exactly that—you might not be disadvantaged at all, and in some cases even have the upper hand. </p>
<p>That said, it <em>is</em> true that hiring a citizen is generally easier than hiring a non-citizen, and in the EU, it's easier to hire a non-citizen who lives in the EU than a non-citizen who lives outside the EU. The result will be a lot more bureaucracy. Whether or not the hiring unit wants to go through the extra trouble will make a lot of the difference, and it's not something you have much control over. (The same principle applies in the US for non-citizens!)</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>There a multiple levels on which this problem operates. This is especially true for places saturated with immigrants. (For instance, USA with Indians/Chinese)</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Getting the Job</strong></p>
<p>This problem itself has a million subdivisions. Firstly, it is fairly difficult for immigrants (who studied in that country) to get jobs without exhibiting something really outstanding. The problem is not so bad for sectors such as computer science and electrical engineering wherein professionals are required by the dozen. The problem, however, is really bad in areas such as Theoretical Physics or Chemistry (or basic sciences). With limited vacancies and a million outstanding candidates, it is really difficult to crack that "top job". </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Working in Sensitive Sectors</strong></p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>I don't even want to get started on sectors like Aerospace. More often than not, graduates from the top universities in USA and Europe have returned to their homelands because all companies stress on citizenship. For EU, it is fairly difficult for a Non-EU resident to get a job in the first place, add to that defense and secrecy and you have a useless degree. In USA, it's even better, if you graduate with a PhD in Aerospace Control Systems from say, Stanford, you are still worthless for US companies because they don't ask just for citizenship anymore but also <a href="https://owa.jhuapl.edu/psp/cg89prod_cg/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_HM_PRE&Action=A&SiteId=1" rel="nofollow">Top Secret (or Lower) Security Clearance</a>! That's at least 10 years for a foreign citizen.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>Immigration and Visa</strong></p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>Getting a job is one part, getting the necessary immigration documents cleared is another. I mentioned about Aerospace engineering being a potential problem as far as jobs are concerned. But thats not all! USA has published a <a href="http://www.bu.edu/isso/forms/tal.pdf" rel="nofollow">list</a> called the technology alert list which requires screening of candidates before granting a visa. </p>
<p>The immigration laws in the Europe aren't very friendly for Non-European to begin with but as far as I know, they don't maintain a strict segregation between "things non-citizens can't do" and "things they can". However, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8839006/Swiss-far-right-party-on-course-for-record-breaking-election-win.html" rel="nofollow">rising</a> far-right politics, things don't seem to get any better in the future.</p></li>
</ul> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52 - chunk idx 2 |
<p>I don't think a "definitive" answer is possible, but the following is based on personal experience and observation of many other students.</p>
<p>If your advisor is okay with it, take as many courses as you can in things that interest you and are in the realm of your discipline. As an applied math grad student, one of the best things I did was to take a graduate course in optimization from the CS department, even though I thought it had nothing to do with my thesis (in numerical discretization of PDEs). It ended up being crucial and allowing me to publish at least one paper that I never would have written if I hadn't taken that course. I also took courses in things like astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and turbulence; I don't use those things much but I can converse with scientists in those fields, which is often useful.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/53 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Of course, I didn't take, say, philosophy or Italian or business management courses -- stick to courses related to your field. And make sure that whoever is paying you is okay with it.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/53 - chunk idx 1 |
<p>If you are interested in a teaching job, my answer is yes, definitely. You may be asked to teach some courses that are not in your field, or even before it happens, the search committee may want someone who can teach a wide range of courses. </p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/53 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>I think this does depend a lot on the kind of person you are/ the way of job you like to have.</p>
<p>I studied IT, but I visited a broad variety of courses. Even history, chinese for beginners, and some other stuff which you might think is not related to my field of work. I don't regret it!</p>
<p>But as a Software Engineer it's actually <strong>important to understand a lot of different fields</strong>. As you can be on projects that differ a lof from each other.</p>
<p>Also you propably can <strong>widen your personal network of contacts</strong>, if you go to class with students that you didn't know before!</p>
<p><strong>I would stick to the topics you are interrested in</strong>, instead of ending up as an unhappy person after your studies.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/53 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>Yes!</p>
<p>How do you know in advance what's going to be useful later? The wider a net you cast, the more tools you have at your disposal.</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/53 - chunk idx 0 |
<p>As with David Ketcheson, I don't think a definitive answer is possible, but here are my thoughts:</p> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/53 - chunk idx 0 |
<ul>
<li>It depends on the attitude of your program. Are they trying to ramrod you through your coursework as swiftly as possible? Do they support "dabbling" in other aspects of your graduate career - side projects, practicums, etc.? The answer will likely change wildly depending on those answers.</li>
<li>How set is your "research topic"? I've bounced around several in my time - I think picking up skills that might be useful trumps "Is it directly relevant to Thesis Aim #1". After all, the moment you get out of your PhD program, your research agenda changes again. If all you have is a hammer, and what you'd really like to do is research screws, you're in trouble. If on the other hand, you took 'Seminar in Advanced Screwdriver Theory'...</li> | https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/53 - chunk idx 1 |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 3