Eigen

I'm not on TA, but I do proctor and grade OChem exams every semester for a bit of extra money, and to help out my PI. We generally don't have an answer key before the exam, but that's generally because it hasn't been made yet. As you point out, any orgo TA should already know the answers to the test. The key just helps make sure everyone is on the same page. Differentially to TakeruK, we are indeed supposed to know the test and answer content questions when we proctor. I usually proof the test early in the afternoon before the exam, and answer questions about it during the test. Some other proctors get to see it when it's handed out to the students, and then spend a few minutes working through it. I find it very odd that you are phrasing all of this as on the edge of academic integrity, though. The line for academic integrity is quite clearly at the point when a TA would give the wrong information to a student, not in what information is given to a TA. We've actually had a case of a TA being kicked out of grad school for distributing answers to a test before the exam, and I've heard of similar cases at other schools.

Just to add, it's worth noting that issues like this aren't just for people checking before you're in grad school. This is a minor case, but in more serious cases of dishonesty during application, you can have admission (and degrees) retroactively pulled if you are found to have been dishonest in your admission materials. The likelihood is of course dependent on the severity of the fraud.

You've gotten lots of great advice, and it's a bad situation to be in. Sadly, this is quite common- it's why I tend to recommend that people not go to an institution that only has one PI interested in the research they want to do. So many factors (competition for spots, lack of funding, personality clashes, illness) can make relying on a single person for 6+ years a really tricky thing to do. I also agree with TakeruK that you're probably being overly inflexible in thinking about your area of research interest. Research careers (in my field, but generally as well) are based around taking your entire research background, and using it to create your own niche. Going to work for someone who does exactly what you've always wanted to do can seem cool, until you start applying for faculty jobs and have to move away from that area so you can show that you're distancing yourself from your advisor as an independent researcher. It can be really difficult, but you need to think where you want to be (as a researcher) in, say, 10 years. Then think what combination of skills and background you will need to be successful in that area. Then, you pick graduate advisors (and projects) as well as post-doctoral work that support different skills or background to make your own unique approach to where you want to be.

I think you misunderstood my worries. I know plenty of people that have made the Chem/ChemE jump, but all have been able to show that they will do so well, or have some experience/definite interests in Chemistry. Its just one of several red flags that jump up in my mind with AkaskSky's background.

We don't close threads just because the initial discussion is done. Glad there were no penalties, but did you get worked out the root of the misunderstandings? I don't think most of us were worried about penalties for this (since it was informal work), but rather that similar issues could cause you a problem down the road.

This is my stance in writing intensive courses, or labs with full reports. I'll help students, but I do grade on correct writing even in science courses. And learning how to edit your own work or get help from peers is a part of that.

What I still don't understand is *why* you're showing drafts to professors who aren't your advisor (or potential advisors) and what you're asking them to do with it.

So what is this paper for if it's not for a course? And why are you showing it around? The professor's you're showing the draft to, are they the ones you want to work with? I think at this point some general idea of your field might help, because what you're discussing (writing a draft without the professors you want to supervise you as co-authors, using someone else's data tool, writing a draft before you have the data) all seem unusual for me, but might seem less so if I knew what field you were coming from.

The % something something shows only catches wording changes, not ideas- and based on the most recent post, I'd assume they are saying you're using ideas without attribution, not copying wording.

That's not proofreading/editing. That's what a writing tutor does. It's also not what this thread is about. Paying a professional editing service to go over and correct your paper is not the same thing as going to a writing center and getting a tutor to help you with a paper. As to visiting the website, I was exceptionally surprised either of those universities would allow their writing center to proofread or copy edit, as I'm familiar with the centers for teaching at both schools. Figured I'd double check. As I said, writing centers generally work by sitting down and helping the student with the paper, not directly editing or proof-reading.

Quote from UChicago's Graduate Writing Center: They also make a point of describing that they go over the paper to help the student find errors and work on solutions, rather than direct editing or proof-reading. This is exactly in line with what I suggested above in the training of writing center tutors. Quote from Georgetown's Writing Center: So again, if you're having people that will edit or proofread your papers for you, they're going against the policies of the writing center. Other places I've worked would fire or discipline tutors if they found out they were doing so against policy, so I'd be careful about spreading around the fact that they are. Also note that in both cases, there's a very distinct difference between someone helping you proofread/edit your paper, and someone proofreading/editing your paper directly for you.

I just want to add (late to the thread, I know) that while I'd go with the post-doc between the two options you listed, getting a post-doc to write you a letter is generally not a great thing, even if they're a very accomplished post-doc. Is there really no other faculty member who could write for you?

This. Also, website link removed as per our site advertising policies.

This depends on the school, but it's often not just your PI who has to agree when you go that far out of your discipline. I know a lot of the PIs at my school in most STEM fields complain bitterly when their students take business classes, and many block them from taking them. They even tried to squash a new certificate from the business school in innovation/intellectual property development. You may end up with one that doesn't mind, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

If your writing center is actually proof-reading and editing your papers, someone didn't train them as well as they should have. Generally, writing centers are pretty heavily advised to help generally with writing, but not directly edit or proofread works. The former helps students learn to write (which is the purpose) the latter does it for them.

I would also suggest you update when it moves from "submitted" to "under review". Especially with high tier journals, it can help a lot. Anyone can submit to nature, but only very few make it past desk rejections by the editor into peer review, so it looks very nice to be able to say your paper isn't just submitted to Nature, but under review there.

Tuition waiver is not that universal. You have to be able to argue that the classes you're taking are a benefit to your degree.

I can't see that such a letter would have any worth whatsoever.

Depends on the program. I can't see many Chem PhD programs allowing this, it would take too much time away from making progress on your doctorate.

I'm unsure what you're looking for here. None of us can tell you what your professor is thinking, nor do we have access to either of the assignments in question.

I don't think school policies necessarily need to explicitly prevent professional editing. Rather, I'd think they would need to explicitly allow it. Most honor policies/syllabi include portions about the student certifying that all work presented in courses is their own. I think the key question would be whether the edited document would receive a better grade than the unedited document. If so, then someone else is making changes that result in a better grade, which mean's the grade is not entirely based on your work. If you're being graded off of your writing, and you pay for someone to edit it to be correct, then it is no longer your work. It's one of the reasons most writing centers are so strict about what they will and won't help with. Most professional editing services aren't worried about maintaining the ethical ownership of the work from the writer- so while a good writing tutor/instructor could make general comments and help the student note change to make on their own, they do not make the needed changes themselves. For a STEM perspective, I'd say it's less like using a calculator, and more like paying someone to read over your homework before you turn it in to correct any calculational errors. The analogy to a calculator is the use of a word processor, that automatically catches mis-spellings, and suggest errors in grammar.

Ok, now I'm a bit confused. You start with everything was going well, and then end with "I felt something was off during the first meeting". If things were off from the beginning, then how can they have been going well from the start? Is it possible that you're interpreting something as malicious backstabbing that they did not mean as such?

If you're having trouble finding programs, my general suggestion is to start from the literature. Find cool papers you're interested in, see where those authors are. Check out the rest of their work. It gets you familiar with people in your field, but also lets you find people who you'd really fit with.

I completely disagree with this. It's also at odds with most of the advice I see for people going on the market. Showing works in progress helps give a trajectory- it shows what you've done, but also that you currently have things you're working on. Just note properly what stage they're in- In Preparation, Submitted, Under Review, Under Revision, Accepted. I wouldn't submit a draft with the application, but you could always note (draft available on request) next to the CV entry.

Suggesting schools without knowing your particular interests within analytical chemistry is pretty useless. Fit it is a huge factor. Similarly, safety schools aren't really a thing. You still need to have a good research fit with them.