I am currently finishing up my 3rd semester in a very good (top 10-15 in US) PhD program in math. After this summer, I will have passed all my quals and will seriously have to think about my research. But I have been plagued with financial problems for the last two years and it is currently causing me following problems:

  • I work multiple part-time jobs outside of class and TA-ship, just to break even with my financial obligations. The fact that I am an international student makes it even harder to find such jobs; I usually end up working for late night jobs for low pay.

  • Getting tired from work, I rely on caffeiniated drinks to basically just survive and do my class works. It seems like forever since the last time I felt fresh and full of enthusiasm to do math. It seems like it has been working so far only because I am only in my 2nd year and only taking classes.

So my question is that how realistic it is for me to continue like this and expect to be at least moderately successful doing research? If there is anybody here who dealt with similar issues, I would be very glad to hear what your solution was.

P.S: Quitting the program and going back to my home country is not option an – I will have to stay in the program until I finish it or get a full-time, industry job in US, whichever comes first. Also, my adviser is sympathetic with my situation and helped me a lot by securing me a summer position, but that is the extent of what he can do to help me financially.

Is it okay to discuss personal experiences or observations in literature review as long as they are relevant and contribute to the presentation of the summary of literature?

In other words,
I am not intending to reference or cite any of my experiences as a source, but rather, I am seeking to use my experiences to essentially add to the research story.

For instance,

The Blah Blah theory by Smith (2010) suggests A, B, and C. I experienced event M and I observed event N, which may potentially be manifestations of the phenomenon described in the Blah Blah theory, with event M being a possible example of A and event N being an example of C.

Something to this extent.

Many of the papers I have read primarily use examples from their studies or hypothetical scenarios to explain models/theories, but I have only ran across personal experience examples in textbooks and not in academic review papers or theses.

I’m a math postdoc at a research university, and I have 1-1 teaching for the next two years. What would be the ideal mix of courses to (1) prepare me for a higher teaching load in the future (hopefully as TT faculty), (2) demonstrate my teaching ability to hiring committees (if it matters), and (3) still allow me to concentrate on research?

I’m considering requesting Abstract Algebra II and Linear Algebra next year. My only teaching experience so far was one semester of Linear Algebra in graduate school. It went well and I enjoyed it, but it was a while ago so I think I’ll have to spend some time getting used to teaching again.

I am a grad student.

I am taking a course wherein we were asked to do a group project. I asked around a few people but people seemed “paired up”. I found a group of two people willing to take me in.

First few days it was fine. Then the presentation came by, one member vanished and the other one “deleted” the slides he was supposed to discuss, made up an excuse, and in the end I ended up giving the presentation. The person was also controlling the slides while I was talking and at a point pretended that he couldn’t move the cursor as the system hung up. We had to abort the presentation then. Moments later, another person came to help us out and as it turns out the system was perfectly fine. The guy only did that to sabotage my presentation. Why would he do that? Also the person who actually didn’t show up got to the presentation last moment and started talking about it as if they knew everything about it(they made some wrong facts).

Its only later I found out that the aforementioned person (ppt killer ) is actually a really dishonest person (fabricated data due to which was kicked out of his phD program, got a masters instead and will be allowed to graduate sooner) and the other person is chums with him. Now we’re working on something only I’m knowledgable about because of my previous work in the field (they are completely relying on my expertise, even the project title and content was chosen by me). This weekend we were supposed to have a meeting, just before the meeting I sent a paper which would form the crux of the whole project. After making it to the place, no one showed up and they suddenly made up excuses of not being able to make it.

I feel cheated, like they’re only using me for my knowledge and excluding me out of all the real discussions and work for the project.

Should I ask the professor to change my group? As its still early on. Is this the right thing to do? Crossing those two seems bad, they look like the department “shitmouths” to me, always engaged in the latest gossip. What should I say to the prof, please give me some advice.


I am currently in my final semester of masters. I have some background in Algebraic Number Theory. I have one PhD offer from a US university.

When I started getting into algebraic number theory, I did not have much trouble as most of the pre-requisites were from Galois Theory and Commutative Algebra. But through my study in the last two-three semesters, I have realized that Number Theory is a subject which requires knowledge of many different areas like Complex Analysis, Algebraic Geometry, Topology(subjects which I have not learned properly or not learned at all). This has put me under a quite a lot of stress: Am I good enough to study Number Theory or should I shift to something else, something more self-sufficient?

Is it possible (and advisable) to change my research interest to something else? What should I do?

Edit- To add to my troubles, I don’t know anything about Modular Forms or Automorphic Forms or Galois Representations.

Before voting to close this question down, I would like you to know this: I originally asked this question on Math SE. But people told me that it was more of an Academia SE question.

One of the potential upsides of open access papers is that they can be accessed by anyone for free, including people who don’t live or work in a university. As a result, one might think that non-“professional” researchers may access open access papers more than paywalled papers.

Is there any research/study/survey that tried to quantify to what extent open access papers are read by a larger readership than paywalled papers?

When I was younger I had an IQ in the 140s which was highly skewed towards certain subjects. I easily garnered the attention of the professors at my university when I began my undergraduate career(18,19 years old). Now after stress, periods of shutdown, period of taking “filler” classes, etc. it has been years since I was intellectually active consistently (I am now 23). Should I apply to graduate school and assume I can revive my abilities? Or have they already been lost?

Along with my job in GIS, I have done some independent research in my part time, and got some incredible result (at least from my point of view). Till now to whomever shown, no one has been able to prove it wrong.

I want to know how can i get it published without any constraint, means without splitting the paper. it is just of 27 pages including references. Each topic here is some how related to other. Moreover i don’t want to waste time more before it as i plan to jump to other work. and as per me splitting it, will loose value. Nor, i want to get it through any academic institution. can any one provide right suggestions.

Adding my work in anticipation of better suggestion:

It is in astrophysics, in this:

  1. New geometry of photon is created.
  2. Einsteins equation is proved to be wrong & Hubbels law is challenged.
  3. Schwarczchild equation is proved to be wrong & Kharnev’s equation is limited.
  4. Temperature density & Escape velocity for Black hole is created
  5. Use of Planks & KE is redefined for atomic or subatomic particle.
  6. Equation for visibility & Invisibility is calculated. Structure of Universe is created(proving the Dr. Stephens equation to be wrong) Schrodinger equation is modified support the structure
  7. Anew insight is created for mass creation, its destruction.
  8. geometrically working consideration is provided for movement of galaxy.
  9. Role of dark matter & Dark energy is also discussed.
  10. small discussion is also done on Gluons & gravitation.

logically & equation wise neither of these are wrong. Moreover i don’t want to do lot of formatting as most of the publishing house demands.
Publishing house like Nature publication cost is very high for me to pay.

So, is there any relatively economic or free publishing house is to support such work. but it should be trust worthy.

Thanks in advance for suggestion

Can contact me on :Send.rohit5000@gamil.com



I am currently a PhD student in mathematics, and as everyone else, I try to keep updated with articles in my area. I was wondering better ways to keep updated, particularly,
what technologies could help to do this job quicker.

I have seen for example this question, but I believe my question is more specific.

For example, I set RSS tags on arXiv to be sent to my email with some important key-topics in my area. I also follow questions about it in Mathoverflow, setting email alerts as well. And recently I set Google Scholar to send me emails when some authors on my field either publish new articles or when they are cited by someone else. I like to use researchgate as well, but to be honest, I did not manage to make much of it.

I would appreciate any suggestion for the workflow of getting updated, as I suppose that one can always improve on the subject.

I’ve frequently heard people claim that individuals who hold PhDs are not “real” doctors. These people assert that only physicians can rightfully claim this title, and that it’s inappropriate for PhD-holders to use this term.
For some reason, many also think that the MD is much more difficult to attain than a PhD for example in computer science.

So – should Ph.D.s Be Referred To As ‘Doctor?

Ps: currently i am a PhD student and don’t know why the question is being devoted!