With the new requirement of the NSFGRFP that graduate students can apply either their first or second year, I am wary of applying to the Ford Foundation fellowship this year and being unable to apply again next year. I tried looking around on their website but could not find this restriction. However, can anyone confirm to me that this is the case?

I just got my PhD recently and have a postdoctoral position now. I started applying to faculty jobs (tenure track/US/engineering/R1) for this cycle. I know that the whole hiring process is complicated, can/may involve politics, luck etc. and since most applicants don’t hear back from search committees, how can I evaluate/compare my application to others (especially those who got interviewed/hired)? I would like to hear opinions from those who have served in search committees or are involved in the hiring process. Any tips or information will be much appreciated.

I intend on applying for Early Action to, among others, Stanford University (if knowing the school helps, which I’d imagine it does). This school strongly recommends AP and SAT scores, which I have. But I feel that adding SAT Subject Test scores would be beneficial as well.

If I wanted to take the subject tests, due to time I would only be able to apply for Regular Action. So it comes down to two options and whether one will increase my odds of being admitted:

  • Apply for Early Action, with most recommeded test scores?

or

  • Apply for Regular Action, with even more?

Any specifics I’ll be willing to add if necessary.

I am an associate lecturer and its my second term with the undergraduate students.

I noticed some of my students laugh when I teach. Its the most annoying thing I ever felt in my academic life so far. I always think, why some laugh while others appreciate my way of teaching? Its very puzzling.
At the end of my first trimester I received a very positive feedback from the majority students. But just those couple of giggling students ruin my whole confidence.

I don’t speak funny and I look average too but why why that happens with me?

Is it normal in academia? Did this happen to anyone else? And how I can deal with them?

I teach a first year undergrad class in MATLAB programming, and one of my students is completely blind. Quite amazingly, the student memorises the whole chapter before class and regurgitates with the help of someone saying what the output is.

I wonder if anyone has some advice to help the student? I have heard of Emacspeak. There’s also the issue of interpreting graphics – is there any software available that may help with this?

I have recently been offered to pursue a PhD in my field of interest.

Before starting the application, my future supervisor told me that he will soon be working only part time for my current institution (in the UK) while he will also be working in another institution in his home country (in France). He then added that if I see any problems with that and I would prefer finding another full-time supervisor, he would understand it. He also added that I would be the only PhD student he will be supervising during that time.

Actually, I can’t really see any problems with the fact that my supervisor is working part-time at the institution but I obviously lack the relevant knowledge and experience on the PhD process.

So my question: Are there any disadvantages of having a PhD supervisor who is working only part-time at the research institution?

Recently, I have submitted a paper to a high rank journal where I have considered a physical system, and applied a mathematical technique. In order to perform this technique, I have considered some approximations, and the results obtained extended previous results. However, the approximations used in the paper are valid among different approaches in the field, being used in different papers. From this perspective, I know how to response to the referee critics, with evidence from the scientific literature. The question would be if it is appropriate to respond to the referee critics and to motivate in the article the mentioned limitations, or to submit to a new journal. I mention that in the previous published papers by our group the referees didn’t used the word rejection, and have pointed to a major/minor revision. Note that the reviewer report does not says anything about the invalidity of the results, only that they are limited by the approximations used in order to treat the system mathematically and not numerically.