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.

Is there anyone here who can classify these crops in three groups (low, medium and high irrigation water need) for me? Semi-Arid climate is assumed.

If there is a Reference for it please mention.

Wheat / Barley / Pea / Lentil / Potato / Tomato / Watermelon / Alfalfa / Pear / Cherry / greengage / Peach/ Apricot / sour cherry / Blueberries / Berry / Almond / Bean / Onion/ Cucumbers/ Apple / Grapes / Walnut / Rapeseed-Canola Corn / quince / Plum / BellPepper / Zucchini/

I have a paper that includes citations from two authors. Citations from the first author appear only in the first half of the paper, while those from the second author appear only in the second half. Do I need to cite the author’s name in every citation, or can I just cite the first author once and leave other citations with just page numbers until I get to the second author? This is in MLA format, by the way. Any help would be appreciated.

The following question contains sensitive and discussion on a potential suggestion of a criminal countermeasure. Therefore please close and/or delete the question asap if it turns out to be unacceptable/inapproporiate (NB Nothing in the meta said question of this nature cannot be posted, as evidenced by the various “is it legal to X” question. It will be a good idea to discuss about a dangerous idea so that people will become aware of its implications and how to handle it when it happens)

UPDATE: Question have been rephrased as per comment’s advice

Recently, I came across this nice article thus being introduced more about the concept of predatory journals and publishers, on how they basically are 419 spams in disguise.

There’s a nice list of predatory publishers included which helps to identify them.

While a separate link considers a variety of methods on what to do with them. I am wondering about a hypothetical scenario of the impacts caused by a extremely mad professor that is secretly a skillful hacker who had been annoyed by this and decided a dark sided approach to this problem, by effectively “DDoS” their servers into inoperation taking advantage of paper generators to generate a huge number of bogus papers for submission, and unlike the famous Get me Off your fucking mailing list case, all authors that are generated are not real. Therefore, such professor is effectively fighting spam with spam and thus possibly in breach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (If in USA).

The question is then about the possible impact such criminal will cause and how to detect those impacts early

  1. *Suppose the plan actually backfires and actually worsen the already bad problem of post truths due to how it increases the number of refined articles made by the predatory publisher to reach the media, and thus increase the exposure of junk science to the public due to the media citing them, how should the damage be mitigated?
  2. Any other potentially dangerous impacts that is not covered by the above questions?