This year I will apply to graduate school in Statistic. My situation is:
I obtained first Undergraduate degree in computer science with very bad GPA (due to not focus on study). After that I worked as software engineer for one year.
Then I returned to another university and earn a bachelor degree in Math and statistic. This time I had very good record with highest GPA among math department and many research experiences.
Now my question is: Do I need to include my first degree in CS in application or I just need to use my Math degree?
I’m attending a Russel group university in the UK, and studying Computer Science in the 2nd year of an undergraduate degree.
I’m reasonably happy with the vast majority of the taught content, but sometimes certain parts of the syllabi trip me up or I’m not sure if I’m correctly understanding how to approach solving certain problems. At Sixth Form, if I was stuck I’d try and work it out myself and then ask the subject tutor if I wasn’t getting anywhere.
At university, there appears to be a stark difference in the academic support offered. Many lecturers do not have regular office hours and are unresponsive when asked if an appointment could be scheduled. Questions sent via email aren’t comprehensively addressed, even when it’s clear that substantial independent work using external resources (content from other universities, various textbooks etc) has been done to try and tackle the problem (vs. simply asking for an answer with no work to show for it). There’s little I can do other than consult my peers when I don’t understand something – and if many of us are stuck we feel completely lost.
There also seems to be a difference in the support materials provided. Many modules don’t publish example problems or solutions, provide any form of solutions to past exam questions or sign-post relevant textbook exercises. This differs greatly to previous exams prior to university, where the exam board would make marking schemes, model solutions and examiner reports available each year. I feel ill-prepared for most exams, because I find it difficult to verify my answers to practice problems are correct.
Is this the norm for undergraduate study, or are these signs of issues within my department? Are my expectations in terms of academic support unrealistic?
I am completing my master’s by thesis this year at a small western university. I would really like to pursue my PhD (Maths/Stats) in Hong Kong, but I’ve been told by my supervisor and others that a PhD from a non-Western country is looked down upon by employers. Especially in my desired industry (finance).
This doesn’t really make sense to me because Hong Kong is obviously a very developed city, the language of instruction is English, and it’s a big financial center. The universities I’d want to enter (University of Hong kong and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) are also ranked in top 100.
Is my supervisor wrong here, or is this something I should seriously be considering?
What should be done about a student who is widely known among students to be a bully and has recently teased another student by threatening to carry out a shooting on their campus?
Should we let the victim student decide whether he wants to report this incident, or do we report it irrespective of the victim student’s decision?
I’m a new PhD student in a CS-related research area with a very limited number of publications. As part of working on my current research projects I’ve managed to get some non-archival publications at workshops of top tier conferences to show my work in progress.
These non-archival publications range from 3 to 8 pages and contain enough good content to make it into a decent number of mid-range journals/conferences. I’d say that this is quite different from what you would know from workshop publications in e.g. social science, and I would therefore like advice from others with a similar research field to mine.
I’d like to show this work on my academic resume, but what is the preferred approach? Should I list it alongside my “real” publications and mark each one of them with a note saying it was non-archival, should I list them separately or should I do something completely different?
Things are a bit complicated as I also have 2 recent non-archival papers from a more tangential field to CS. These papers are not workshop papers, but similar in scope in terms of amount of content. I guess I also need to fit these in the same category. Note that some of my non-archival papers involve presentations and some posters.
I have started doing a project and I promised to report my results every week to my professor. At the beginning, he told me you should have a reasonably good laptop.
I thought my laptop could support the project.
Yesterday, I realized that my laptop has a 2G graphic card and the project needs a laptop with the at least 3G graphic card. I have written the code but my laptop can’t run the code to see the results.
What should I tell my professor?
If I buy a new laptop it will take about 1-2 weeks, however my financial support from my family is poor.
I have been recruited by a professor on a well-known university in the US east coast for a visiting student program during the summer (it’s an only-research program). Since this program isn’t an all-costs paid one, I’m deciding if I should go.
Which are the advantages of being a visiting student? How can this help to have a better graduate application even if I apply to a different department (from this program’s department) but at the same university? How does the impact differs from a REU?
I’ve read this Quora reference, but I want to have an insight from this particular forum. Thanks in advance.
Btw, I’m a foreign student.
Why are there so many narcissists in academia (higher education environments)? Is it a mirror of the culture at large-or is it something unique to being in academia?
I’m just about to complete my MSc thesis in engineering at a
university in Sweden. Moving forward I have two alternatives: Pursue a
PhD in Norway or build self-driving cars at Zenuity. This is obviously
a very individual decision but both positions have their appeal. If
you have relevant experiences I would greatly appreciate reading about them.
I have two thesis supervisors: A professor at my university in Sweden
and one in Norway. They explained to me that they were impressed with
my work and they would like me to apply for a PhD position in Norway.
I was of course very flattered so I applied and subsequently received
The PhD would be in the same area as my thesis. It’s an area I find
deeply interesting and I think the interest in the area will continue
to expand. Furthermore, I trust the professor who’d be my supervisor
as he’s been supervising me during my thesis. The PhD position is
appealing as it’s an opportunity to fully devote myself to learning
new things. Furthermore, there is a great sense of achievement when
you finally solve a problem. But those times are few and far between.
And even then you don’t known if anyone will actually care about your
discovery. Furthermore, most of the PhD students I’ve met are not
people I would enjoy having lunch with. Few of them seem to actually
be interested in their work or even fully understand it. Many of them are
stressed out. The professors are generally
impressive though. And I like the freedom it offers.
I’ve also received an offer to develop software for self-driving
vehicles at the Swedish company Zenuity. My impression is that they
face difficult and interesting challenges that are close to those
researched in academia. They also offer a great deal of freedom in
terms of working hours. Furthermore, the people in industry seem to be
people I’d enjoy having lunch with to a much greater extent. It would
also be more different from what I’ve been doing previously. On the other hand it probably offers less freedom than academia and any ideas I have will belong to the company rather than to myself.
This may not be the best place to ask this question, if so please inform me.
I am approaching the end of my program and will be applying for jobs soon. But some of my colleagues (some of which I’d even go as far as to call friends) have already decided their industry, company and even signed offer letters.
But when I ask details about the company, the salary, the benefits or scope of work. Some people get really defensive.
I don’t understand why this is. Is this an academica thing, a culture thing, or am I just a bit more socially inept than I thought?
From my perspective as someone who is also soon graduating asking for insight on such things seems perfectly normal.