It is commonly known that increasing attention and decreasing exposure of students increase its learning (correct if I am wrong)

For that purpose I have think some strategies:

  • Make anonymous questionnaires
  • Personalize teaching
  • make examples interesting for the things they like.

I have heard that for Make anonymous questionnaires there is a programme called Socratic, do you know of it? Any other similar free software to recommend?

I am in a very confused situation as to how to decide my career pathway. First of all, a brief intro of myself.

My Background
I have completed my BEng in Software Engineering with an ordinary degree. Apart from my Bachelors degree, I do not have any other educational qualifications. Though I have a degree in software engineering, I do not find it interesting to work as a software developer, neither Back-end nor Front-end. I was working for a Software development company but resigned within 1 month.

Now I have decided to change my track completely drifting away from Software Engineering. I have thought of starting a Psychology degree and proceed with it. Meanwhile, am following an on line course in edX, Animal Behavior, since it is from one of my passion. I like to be with environment, nature and studying the behaviors of every animal. I also have a deep interest in documenting and researching about lifestyle of people from various culture and religious backgrounds.

Since my family doesn’t know any of these, they think that I am just working as a software engineer and should continue it. I haven’t told them about my resignation as well.

I love reading books, doing researches (I tried searching for research projects which I could be a part of it), reading and watching documentaries on various subjects, observing animals and going hiking and trekking to involve with the nature and sometimes cooking. I want to be an entrepreneur, which I have started my business very recently to generate my income for these fun activities.

I need some advices and recommendations from people around me, or people who share my common interests and those think alike. It would be a great help, thanks in advance.

Full disclosure (at the beginning in order to increase my credibility): I’m searching for a professor supervising my Bachelor thesis, i.e. under-graduate, however the question can apply to academics holding degrees as well.

I have developed requirement specification and programmed a prototype of a software platform and already tried to apply for a entrepreneur scholarship which failed because it was targeting founding companies commercializing academic research. I had none, so I decided to connect my bachelor thesis in sociology to a theoretic foundation of behavioral patterns on online platforms which might be used in the requirement specification of the specific software and software in general.

Since I want the connection to be strong in order to increase the change for funding (while still maintaining a scientific question and answer) it might be useful to share documents with the professor which I can’t protect via patents because software patents are tricky. The changes that he’s going to use such documents against my interest is very very small, but I’d like to know if it’s acceptable to ask him for a statement that he’ll not expose details about the project.

This obviously targets documents which will not be part of the appendix of the thesis and only be summarized there, but it might still be useful to talk about them in one of the few short we’re going to have.

I don’t worry about the content before getting feedback here, but it’s obviously not going to be a 30 pages catalogue.

I’m studying in Germany.

I’ve written a statistical software package and published a paper on it. Recently, it appears to have received moderate use, but with at least less than a 50% citation rate. I know this because Google Scholar will tell me that a paper mentions the name of my software package (it’s a nonsense word, so this shouldn’t be by chance), but the paper will not cite the package itself; in some cases there will be something like “We used package X for statistical programming language R”, with a citation for R but not X.

One the one hand, I’m glad people are using my tools and that makes me happy. On the other hand, I would like citations due, if just from a career standpoint. My guess is that many researchers may not be aware that a citation should be included; I estimate that the majority of users of the package probably work outside the field of statistics. R makes it very easy to cite software (R> citation("X") gives you the bibTex)…but I didn’t even know that until I started writing software.

It’s my view that at least some of the responsibility should lie with the reviewers/editors. Would it be impolite to point this out to the editors of the journal? I really don’t want to be in the business of harassing the users of my software, nor trying to point the finger at them either. Or is it just accepted that you should expect a little under a 50% citation rate?

EDIT:

A good question was asked in the comments: what do I hope to achieve? I’m not 100% sure! I suppose I’m wondering if there’s a polite way to raise awareness of proper citations for software? Both writing software and continuing to support users of the software is fairly time consuming (I would estimate I’ve spent over 300 unfunded hours on those two tasks?), but I’m convinced it’s one of the ways statistics researchers can be most helpful to outside researchers. As such, I suppose I would like to gently push the system to be more supportive of that effort…without being a grumpy ol’ stats guy complaining about anyone who uses their contributions.

Please provide answer specifically for the cracked/ pirated versions and not about using free student versions and freewares. It is me (not the institution) who has downloaded and used the cracked software on my personal laptop to derive the results. Institution has no role in it.
Also I don’t think research publications and thesis writing does come under the category of ‘commercial use’. It should be ok if I use cracked software on my own laptop and publish the result.

About 5 years ago, Jake VanderPlas wrote an interesting and in my opinion, crucial, piece on why many academic cultures are unsustainable in the long run, and will eventually be outcompeted industry if not totally collapse due to excessive brain drain.

His key argument is that desirable academic skills are increasing indistinguishable from desirable industry skills, the difference is that industry pays more, and produces vastly more interesting results with higher impact. Thus raising the natural question: why stay in academia? For instance, why would any post-doc earn 40k when they can earn 200k using the same skillset working at IBM, Apple, Google, Uber, Ebay, Amazon, Yahoo, Etsy, Ali Baba….this list is endless.

This brain drain has been documented in recent articles such as:

  1. “Big tech firms’ AI hiring frenzy leads to brain drain at UK universities
    High demand at companies such as Google could leave fewer talented scientists to teach next generation, academics fear”

  2. “‘We can’t compete’: why universities are losing their best AI scientists A handful of companies are luring away top researchers, but academics say they are killing the geese that lay the golden eggs”

  3. “AI academic warns on brain drain to tech groups”

It seems the author’s prediction has by and large came to fruition.

Key excerpt from the first article:

With virtually the entire world utilizing the tools of data-intensive discovery, the same skills academia now ignores and devalues are precisely the skills which are most valued and rewarded within industry.

The result of this perfect storm is that skilled researchers feel an insidious gradient out of research and into industry jobs. While software-focused jobs do exist within academia, they tend to be lower-paid positions without the prestige and opportunity for advancement found in the tenure track. Industry is highly attractive: it is addressing interesting and pressing problems; it offers good pay and benefits; it offers a path out of the migratory rat-wheel of temporary postdoctoral positions, and often even encourages research and publication in fundamental topics. Most importantly, perhaps, industry offers positions with a real possibility for prestige and career advancement. It’s really a wonder that any of us stay in the academy at all.

Couple years ago I have read similar question being asked (perhaps precisely on this StackExchange), and at the time the common consensus was one of denial. A few prominent professors predicted that no such brain drain would occur due to historical tendencies they have seen in the students, in other words, a non-issue. But now it seems that the brain drain cannot be stopped, a quick survey of my fellow graduate students quickly revealed that none of them wanted to remain in academia after graduation.

Out of this denial and leadership vacuum in academia, a very insidious academic culture has developed: students would start a PhD degree just to take enough industry-oriented courses and then quickly leave for industry. I have personally witnessed this in many fellow graduate students.

So, once again, is there anyway for academia to stop or halt the one way brain flowing from academia to industry? What can academic culture change in order to attract bright and talent students to carry on with fundamental research?