I’m about to receive my undergraduate degree at a top 5 University. My undergraduate courses were comprised mostly of computer programming, logic, mathematics, philosophy, and neuroscience (I had an interdisciplinary major that was essentially a computational cognitive science major). I initially wanted to be a software engineer. However, I realized that, while I love programming, it is not what I want to continue doing full-time.

I spent some time abroad last summer in Europe, visiting/working at refugee centers and learning about the processes and issues surrounding immigration. I found myself fascinated with policies and their effects on human lives. After taking a few supplementary courses in history and the social sciences during my senior year, it was clear to me that I wanted to get an MPP. My school offers a joint MA/MPP program in Public Policy and International Policy Studies, which is exactly what I’m looking for. Unfortunately, I did not meet the prerequisites (macroeconomics, microeconomics, etc.), and I did not have enough sources who could write me recommendations in this field, so I felt that I could not apply this year.

The program is open only to current students in my University, or recent alumni (2009-onward). As I have not yet graduated, I have two options:

  • Stay another year and finish a double major in Public Policy. That way, I could apply to the International Policy Studies program having completed the core. I would also (ideally) have faculty recommendations, and a better sense of direction.

  • Graduate on time and work for two years or so. Apply again as a ‘recent alumni’. Given that I would still need to fulfill the prerequisites, I am assuming that I would still need to take courses on the side.

Is there a rule of thumb for determining what to do in this kind of situation? (Assume that money/housing will not be a huge issue).

Do lecturer’s tend to remember the work of past student’s, in particular one’s they viewed over a year ago? I’m asking this because a colleague has seen the Turnitin Originality Report of one of my students which shows 3% similarity to another student’s work and they keep requesting to see that paper, despite the small resemblance. I don’t think this is necessary as it requires a long formal process of providing justification for doing so.

One of my research work was published in the year 2015 as Online First article and has also received a few citations.

Just recently, it got published in the formal Volume (Issue), pp. 1234 — 1250, 2017.

I had listed this publication as 2015, (In press) till now. But, I am now confused, whether should I remove the year 2015 completely from my CV, or should I keep both like (Online first, 2015), Volume (Issue), pp. 1234 — 1250, 2017 ?

I have been asked to peer review a paper related to my field of expertise. My educational level is MSc, however I am published. I am referred to as Doctor throughout the request email even though when published, this is not how I refer to myself by any means. This has occurred before and I responded that whilst I would be willing to peer review, I was not a PhD, however they asked me to do it regardless (a different journal than the current requesting journal). I am willing to peer review again and am extremely thorough and capable of doing so, however I don’t think you could call me an expert in terms of years and years of papers and academia. I am not sure how to respond. Firstly how was I chosen, was it random or specific enough; it’s a wide field and even when honest about qualifications I was asked to go ahead. Anyone have any thoughts?

Just to add this is a journal under the same umbrella group that I previously reviewed for and one in all likelihood I will submit to myself in the future. Would refusing a request for per review then go against me?

I’ve already got a little experience doing self-led research but not in doing setup for the domain in which I work. I really enjoy talking with my supervisor about actual research topics, but I don’t enjoy the workflow he suggests.

For example, there is a particular software development toolkit I’ve been told to use, but it’s constructed in such an unorthodox way as to be unusable outside of a certain development environment in a very specific way (in Eclipse IDE) and isn’t compatible with development conventions which are nearly ten years old (Maven). I only found this out when it was too late and have had to jury-rig everything as I go, and now, due to having thrown together a bunch of weird stuff together without testing it properly (having been given the green light by my supervisor, respecting his decision that it would work fine), I’ve spent six months collecting data which is messed up to the point of being unusable. My supervisor was also surprised, admitting that he didn’t expect any sort of problem like that (which is why he recommended throwing the said things together).

I like and respect my supervisor but can’t help but feel the whole project has gone sour thanks to “just doing it the simple way” which has turned out to be unbelievably complicated and now it’s very likely I spent all that effort for nothing. What can I do when I respect my supervisor’s research advice but don’t like doing things the way he does? Obviously it works well for him, so I feel even more disillusioned that I’m the one with all these problems.

Being more sure of the nature of the working relationships at the department, I now feel that I could have politely declined at the time without offending said person as long as I was confident and produced results.

I am using MLA. I have two paragraphs which are paraphrases of 5 different papers over tillage. Each fact and statement in the two paragraphs are somehow (pretty directly) stated in each of those papers. All my references are used in those two paragraphs as everything else is a proposed solution that hasn’t been test and all other information is cogni scienti. Do I just stick the citations at the end of the two paragraphs? I want to use all these references to show consensus in the agricultural science community.

I would like an opinion of some university staff on the following.
I am going to repeat my penultimate year in university as I wish to change my module selection and have already decided that this will happen.

What I want an opinion on is what to do for my current exams, given that I will get approx. 5% in 5 out of 10 exams due to the simple fact that I will not be taking the subject when I repeat. The other exams I will also do poorly in, possible fail.

Should I:

  1. attend the exams and receive a fail grade OR
  2. not attend the exams and not have any failure marks on my student record

For some background, I have passed the previous two years with no issues and to be honest I don’t really want a failure grade on my student record, absent sounds better to me but I am unsure about the university staff.

Is “it worth” typically pursuing poster submissions at relevant conferences for PhD students who are in their third or fourth year? Obviously this is a somewhat subjective quantity, but is it generally considered appropriate for researchers who are not new to their field to pursue such publications, and do they realistically have standing, relative to, let’s-say, short papers?