In my place of work, which has a very incipient progress in the field of research in Computer Science, has occurred this dichotomic situation:
It has arrived one lecturer that has finished his PhD students in a foreign country. Because he has some research already on the way from his doctoral studies, he has formed a research group within our Faculty.
There is another lecturer that has only a Master degree, also in CS, but he has some good ideas but he suffers from imposter syndrome.
In this situation the former group minimizes the attempt of the second group to form a research group; stating things like “a research group to be successful should always be led by a doctoral graduate if not is doomed”
The question is, is it needed to have a doctoral researcher inside a research group (sorry for the redundancy)? or in what ways we should encourage the formation of research groups even though they are not lead by a PhD graduate?
Our paper have been reviewed two days ago. The comments of the the two reviewers are few and of minor type (spelling and format issues) and can be addressed easily, except of one comment in which one of the two reviewers “optionally” asked if we can use data from other locations. However, we cannot do this now. Getting the data will take long time before being used in the study, the deadline of the journal revision is so tight, and the study is already intense and long. The status on the journal online system is “Major Revison” despite the fact that all other comments are minor, and the only major comment is optional.
How do we respond to the reviewer to take the other option: not adding new data?
What are the chances of accepting the paper in this case?
My paper is still with editor for about two months. My field is engineering. the paper is not controversial. It is a review article. However, the IF of the journal is high (6.7). Is it normal, or should I email the journal about that?
I have BSc. in Statistics and I am interested in pursuing a Master’s degree in Statistics.
I have looked at several master’s program in Statistics, and I have narrowed my options down to few.
But it turns out that I can take all these master’s program either via distance learning (i.e. online) or on-campus. Personally, I want to take my master’s program via distance learning if I can, mainly because the issues that I have with relocation. But some people has been telling me to take the program on-campus because of the following reasons:
Taking program on-site is better because you don’t get to chance to build a connection with people from industry or with your professors if you are an online student.
The employers will notice that I took the Master’s program online, and it will serve as a disadvantage when I look for a job after graduating from the program
Can I overcome these issues while being a online student? Also, what are the pros of taking graduate program online compared to taking it on-site?
I have high functioning autism / aspergers syndrome comorbid with ADHD.
During highschool I went undiagnosed, but always suspected I was autistic. I had a few Dr’s comment but I didn’t really agree with them at that time.
Fast forward now, I got my psychiatric diagnosis, and also found out that I had ADHD. I don’t care about being autistic, but finding out I had ADHD and treating it is what really impacted my life the most.
I can conduct myself well socially but have significant difficulties in particular social situations in specific contexts — ones that I do not have any experience. In addition, I learn in very specific ways and methods.
I’m hesitant to inform my school about this because I don’t really consider it a disability. I don’t really care that I’m socially clueless (I prefer to be alone most of the time anyway) and my ADHD is being treated and working well so far. I have a few sensory issues and routines but they are under control. My emotional regulation is fine. I’m very “anal” at particular things.
My degree somewhat aligns with my special interests, and I’ve learnt to better manage doing things I don’t like (which was legitimately impossible without my ADHD medication).
Country: Australia, but will appreciate other perspectives
Age: 19, M
So I’m from India, doing a math major in a 4 years Bachelor of Science + 1 year in Master of Science (ongoing right now) course, both in the Indian Institute of Science and messed up really badly in the first 3 years of my undergraduate, making my current cumulative GPA 2.72 (converted GPA). However, my GPA in the 4th year was relatively better (converted GPA being 3.21). Now I’ve been wanting to do a PhD in the US. But even though my GRE scores are 157 (Verbal) + 170 (Quantitative), along with my subject GRE scores being 840 (87% percentile), and I am expecting good recommendations (due to my research work) from relatively reputed professors, I still do not think these are nearly enough to compensate for my low GPA.
So what I’m thinking right now is doing another Master degree in India itself-especially because even the best universities here mostly rely on admission tests and don’t care much about my past GPA. I will be giving admission tests to the Master of Math programs in the Indian Statistical Institute, as well as in Chennai Mathematical Institute, the two most well known math research universities in the country, and as far as I know my chances there aren’t unrealistic. I’m 90% sure that this time my GPA will be much better, if given a second chance, and I really want to do a PhD in the US because of how much better the opportunities offered there are.
The problem is, one of my professors is recommending me to do a PhD straight away in India itself, and is saying that another Masters would be a waste of time.
My question thus is-should I spend another two years doing a Master (of Math) in India itself, get a better GPA and then apply for a PhD in the US, or is it not worth it and I should just go for a PhD in India itself?
If a professor in a North American country presents his- or herself by his/her first name in email messages, does this mean that students can refer to him/her by his/her first name? Or is this generally not a good idea, unless the professor has explicitly mentioned that he/she can be referred to by first name? I’ve noticed that most professors, who prefer to be referred to more formally, do not sign their emails with just their first names, but usually initials or first and last name.
What would be the claim, evidence, and reasoning for an engineering project if you don’t have a question in the first place (claim is supposed to be the answer to an inquiry question and also patterns in the data).
I’ve applied for various top math PhD programs as a junior, and I’ve got rejected by all of them. In order to be successful in reapplication, I’d like to be sure whether my course load is something considered desirable or not from the perspective of admission committee. My background can be found in
Is writing an expository paper helpful for math PhD admission?. (I’ve followed the advice given there, but the outcome was so much trouble probably because there’s a serious flaw with my stats.) The following is my course load until the last fall semester.
Undergrad-level: Abstract Algebra, Complex Analysis, Experimental Math, Rep Theory of Finite Groups, reading course on Fourier/harmonic analysis
Grad-level: Algebraic Geometry II, Algebraic Topology II, Lie Algebra & Groups II, Microlocal Sheaf Theory, Geometric Rep Theory (seminar), TQFT (seminar)
I’ve taken only the second semester courses of the one-year-long sequences (e.g. Algebraic Geometry II).
I’ve taken topics courses and seminars (a letter grade was given in each), in which there is no assignment or exam. I did a presentation in each.
I didn’t take real analysis, grad-level algebra, commutative algebra, differential geometry, ODE or PDE, which I studied by myself and are prerequisite for some of the courses I’ve taken.
This semester I’m taking Geometric Analysis, Topics in Continuum Mechanics and a project on (homological) mirror symmetry. For the next year I’m planning to take topics courses and seminars. My math GPA is 3.8, and in particular I’ve got straight A in grad courses and seminars. Does this look seriously inconsistent? If so, should I take courses like PDE and commutative algebra in the next semester rather than topics courses?
There are a lot of lists of Nobel laureates by institution available online. However I cannot find any that list laureates by where they are currently working. Does such a list exist?