Long story short:
I graduated from a college 10 years ago on scholarship.I receive a call from an attorney a few months ago regarding unpaid tuition/fees from this particular college.He is extremely rude and demanding.I call the college out of confusion and they can no longer help me since it has already been sent to collections.The lady simply said that she was hired to go back and find mistakes and that she had found it and the scholarship was not good for that particular semester. I have never received anything from them.I was advised to call the people who gave me the scholarship,which I did.They have yet to call me back.How can the college bill be after 10 years?They never would have let me have my transcript after transferring and I would have never been able to graduate or attend the classes had a owed tuition(Because I certainly didn’t have a loan).What can I do about this situation??

This might seem like a small problem, but one I’ve been thinking about lately, and was hoping for some insights. I joined a new lab around a year ago, and while things have mostly been going great, my lab colleagues are really not the brightest group. They are wonderful people to work with (and friends in a non-work sense), but just not engaging when it comes to the science. They basically fall into two categories: 1) average students. Average at everything basically. Not bad in any way, but just… not great either. Cannot have an intellectual conversation with them. 2) Very smart, but not hard-working. Takes short-cuts etc. Essentially someone who is very good at talking the talk, but not really walking the walk. Again, very smart people, but overtime I’m just losing respect for them as scientists.

I guess I was just used to (and took for granted) working with great people who are engaging, and who you can have a real “science” conversation with. People I respect and have learnt so much from. To be honest I’ve been a little down lately because I just miss being surrounded by great colleagues. I know it’s a downside to joining a new lab, and that it’ll likely get better as our lab grows, but I’m still regretting the growth opportunities I’m missing out on. My advisor is basically the only person in our group I can have a real conversation with. Even our lab manager is just a few years older than me, and I can tell she sees this as nothing more than a job that pays the bills. All of our conversations I walk away from feeling indifferent and having gained nothing. This probably seems like a silly problem, but I was just wondering if anyone has had similar experiences or have advice.

INSPIRE has a list of the 100 most highly cited papers during 2015 in the math archive as well as the one for hep-th. The one for math is probably a bit skewed toward physics, since this “archive” probably means that of INSPIRE, which is known for physics rather than math. Either way, what I’m interested to see are similar lists for each mathematical branch (e.g. math-ag) rather than math as a whole. I’ve found an old list for math-ph only, but it seems that that’s all from INSPIRE. I suppose this sort of data is useful for the situation of the following kind. Let’s say my area of interest is far from probability, yet I’m interested in a list of the recent hot papers in probability for fun. Mathoverflow may be useful for learning about hot papers, but it’s time-consuming for my purpose, since I want a rather extensive list for each of many branches of math. Elsevier’s journal such as Advanes in Mathematics have most downloaded/cited lists, but this is just for each journal of Elsevier only, which is quite limited.

I have a few grades listed on my undergraduate transcript that I am not satisfied with. Those grades were for fairly easy classes, that weren’t classes for my major. I got a B in a first-year class I took this year as a senior, that I thought I was going to get an A in. Taking a Freshman class as a senior should be a piece of cake, right? I was expecting an A in the class because I am really good at math, and the class was a math-based class called Quantitative Reasoning.

I ended up getting a B in the class, due to not turning in homework when it is due and also some of the material was a little new to me (we used computer programs like Excel to analyze and organize data).

I don’t like this class being listed on my transcript, as a first-year class I took as a senior in college. It clearly is listed that way on my transcript. I have a feeling graduate admissions people (for when I apply to grad school) are going to question this grade I got on my transcript, and they would see it as a very weak grade.

Even though I have gotten good grades in difficult math classes like Calculus, I got a weak grade in a fairly basic math class, and I would like to know if this grade will negatively affect my application for graduate school. Will it?


To summarize-

  • I’m a good student
  • I am graduating this school year.
  • I am very good at math and numbers.
  • I did ok in a easy math class I thought I would have gotten an A in.
  • Not happy with grade I got in the easy math class.
  • Will this affect how graduate admissions at colleges view my application?

Also, I am not planning on applying to grad school until 5 or 8 years from now (I want to get work experience in first before applying).

I am a Chemical Engineering undergrad, currently in my third year. I enjoy studying almost any subject which has substantial theoretical foundations (at least those which are comprehensible at my level). I have also loved studying the typical applied math courses such as Linear Algebra, DiffE and even some pure math courses like Analysis, Modern Algebra. I have been taking courses from the Math/Physics department in almost every semester since my Chemical Engineering curriculum isn’t that math-y.

Almost all the courses I’ve liked in my major have been those with a significant theoretical component like Fluid Mechanics, Heat Transfer, Thermodynamics etc. I would like to note that for all these subjects I have loved the intrinsic mathematics of the subject as much as I have loved the physics involved (perhaps even more). As a small example I have worked on both CFD as well as hydrodynamic instability during my undergrad research. I tremendously enjoyed my work on vortex instability where I learnt about perturbation theory but somehow writing CFD codes just doesn’t give me that same kick.

With this mind, could someone suggest what should be the ideal PhD programme for me ? I have considered a PhD in a ChemE or Mech Department focused on Fluid Dynamics and have given some thought about Applied Mathematics although I don’t know how feasible that is.

I recently got a paper rejected. I do not plan on appealing, I definitely see that some elements of the paper need improvements.

Nevertheless, some of the comments from one reviewer are factually inaccurate.
For example, I cite Paper A, where claim X is made. This reviewer says (repeatedly, in three different comments) that

The author [me] claims X without proof and does not cite a reference

There are also other inaccuracies from the same reviewer.

Would it be appropriate to write to the editor to answer to this kind of factually inaccurate statements?

There is an opening for an assistant professor position at a US university, that I really want to apply to. However, it is a Catholic university and the application requires a “Statement of Contribution to Mission.” I have read the university’s mission statement which, besides the usual academic missions, includes quite a few religious missions. I am not Christian; in fact, I am an atheist. From the answers to this related question, and that the job posting states clearly Equal Opportunity, I understand that I can still apply to this position. But I have no idea how I should write such a statement. Of course I won’t lie in the statement to pretend that I’m Christian. But having no clue and personal connection to those religious values, tradition, and missions, I find it impossible to write even one word.

Is there any suggestion for writing such a statement? Or should I not apply?

This might seem like a small problem, but one I’ve been thinking about lately, and was hoping for some insights. I joined a new lab around a year ago, and while things have mostly been going great, my lab colleagues are really not the brightest group. They are wonderful people to work with (and friends in a non-work sense), but just not engaging when it comes to the science. They basically fall into two categories: 1) average students. Average at everything basically. Not bad in any way, but just… not great either. Cannot have an intellectual conversation with them. 2) Very smart, but not hard-working. Takes short-cuts etc. Essentially someone who is very good at talking the talk, but not really walking the walk. Again, very smart people, but overtime I’m just losing respect for them as scientists.

I guess I was just used to (and took for granted) working with great people who are engaging, and who you can have a real “science” conversation with. People I respect and have learnt so much from. To be honest I’ve been a little down lately because I just miss being surrounded by great colleagues. I know it’s a downside to joining a new lab, and that it’ll likely get better as our lab grows, but I’m still regretting the growth opportunities I’m missing out on. My advisor is basically the only person in our group I can have a real conversation with. Even our lab manager is just a few years older than me, and I can tell she sees this as nothing more than a job that pays the bills. All of our conversations I walk away from feeling indifferent and having gained nothing. This probably seems like a silly problem, but I was just wondering if anyone has had similar experiences or have advice.