fuzzylogician

In my field, dissertations are definitely read and cited. I was asked about things in my dissertation by hiring committees, even though I never submitted it with my application (but it's on my website, of course, and I submitted published work, some of which stemmed from my dissertation). Sweeping cross-field generalizations are always dangerous. That said, sweeping quality/length generalizations are obviously also going to fail. There's everything out there, as others have pointed out. Taking length to imply quality is wrong, as is worrying about how your degree might somehow be affected by someone else doing what you deem to be sub-par work. It's just such a non-issue.

Yes -- again -- except for the LOR question. As long as the professor finds a way to mention @orange turtle's contribution to the training in his/her LOR, things are okay. If not, there's a problem, regardless of whether a committee is comparing CVs or just reading OP's SOP/cover letter describing this experience as a major accomplishment of theirs and then reading a LOR from OP's advisor that doesn't mention this at all. And -- again -- beyond this local question, I would personally seriously question whether this is someone I trust and would want to work with going forward.

Just to be clear, delegating is perfectly fine, and it's true that more than one person can be involved in training someone. The concern here is solely because the supervisor claims to have "personally" done things that apparently they didn't. That speaks to a type of person that one should be very careful of. Beyond that, this is all pretty routine, including an advisor claiming work done in their lab by their students as part of their own accomplishments. PIs will often be the ones who come up with an idea, procure the funding, and recruit and train students, but then may not be directly involved in the actual day-to-day running of experiments; but they still have every right to claim co-authorship on work stemming from their various investments.

Have you seen these (recent) posts? A search for "disability/disabilities" or "mental health" will yield quite a few posts with helpful advice.

Good luck!

Well, if you can get a *strong* letter from a professor -- that is, a letter that will actually strengthen your application compared to not having it, I think that might be a good idea. Given that you're submitting this as an extra LOR, creating more work for your readers (and generally as a rule in life, for any portion of your application), this extra LOR should clearly be worth the readers' time. Since the programs you're applying to explicitly say to submit academic references, if you'd have asked me before you submitted, I would have said to make sure at least one of your LORs is academic, perhaps both, plus you could submit an extra one from a boss who knows you more recently. Since you've already submitted two professional LORs, yes, if you can find a professor to write you a last-minute letter, you could go for it. Another question you could ask yourself about your two letters is how distinct they are going to be. If they both basically say the same thing, their utility is limited compared to having two letters that describe very different aspects of your personality and work. Again, maybe this is more for future reference, but if you have a chance to make changes now, it's worth rethinking.

If I understand you correctly, the application is already submitted, along with the LORs? If so, I'd strongly encourage you not to spend too much time wondering what-if, because that just won't get you anywhere productive. Once you have your results, if necessary, you can rethink whether you made the right choice; and important part of any advice anyone here might be able to give would be knowing what your other options might have been, otherwise it's hard to know if the choice you made was the best one.* * Caveat: it's not always the case that there even *is* a "right" choice, so really the question is just if it gets your where you need to go, or if there might be another option that has a higher likelihood of doing that, given that there are no certainties in this process.

The relevant question will be if there is someone at each school you're applying to who will be able to read the paper and evaluate it both in terms of writing (easier) and in terms of content (less obvious). If the answer is no, then you might run the risk of having your writing sample not being appreciated because the readers simply aren't experts in the field the paper's written in. You obviously know this, hence your concern. It'll be a bit hard to guess whether such a person exists without knowing what schools you're applying to and what your interests are, but based on your description, my guess would be that this is not the ideal writing sample. A paper that isn't rigorously researched or cited, as you put it, isn't what adcoms will be looking for. I wonder if there might be a way to leverage one of your contacts from abroad or to get started at the LSA and produce a paper that you could get some feedback on over the summer/early fall that would be a better match with your prospective programs.

I'm glad to hear that you were able to come to an understanding with your supervisors about what should be in your dissertation, but it's too bad you didn't take the opportunity to also set some boundaries around work/free time, so you can start also fixing your mental health issues. I hope you're seeking help from a professional. Sometimes this kind of anxiety situation can be handled with medication and/or therapy, but you should always do that in consultation with a doctor, and it would likely also need to come with some lifestyle changes, including creating some free time in your life so you can recover. This conference aside, I think that taking the time to try and heal would be extremely beneficial for you. That aside, to answer your questions (caveat: my responses are based on what is customary in my field!): 1. You'd simply email to apologize and say you've had a medical problem come up last minute, and you regret that it will prevent you from attending the conference. Nothing more is needed. 2. This may depend on the field, but in mine people usually don't have conferences on their CVs if they did not attend. I have seen some "accepted but declined" remarks on CVs, so I suppose that may be an option. 3. This is something that we can't possibly answer. You were accepted, and if a medical problem prevents you from actually attending, that doesn't diminish your accomplishment. I don't think anyone can promise you more than that. One thing you might look into, if mornings are hard, is getting a hotel room (airbnb, or similar) near the conference site. That way you won't have the extra stress associated with early morning travel, and you could take your time getting ready. I would also check the conference schedule because just because the poster session was in the morning at the one conference you attended means nothing for when it'll be scheduled for this time. Also keep in mind that if you're late, that's not the end of the world. The organizers may want you to have your poster up by time X to make for a smoother transition between talks and posters, but you could still show up late and put up your poster whenever you get there. In the event that anybody asks, you explain that you had a delay in the morning that made you late (and you don't need to give any details on what that was!), and you present your poster starting whenever you get there.

First off, that's what you have a committee for. Second, if a committee let that pass, I imagine the student would never get a job in the field because who'd hire someone who produces that kind of work? Third, if this became a practice at said school, they wouldn't be ranked all that high, now would they? It'd be more like one of those fictitious online universities that grant degrees to anyone who pays enough. I don't think that does anything to detract from my hard-earned degree, everyone knows exactly how seriously to take it.

1. The idea that you can get into a PhD program simply because you did an MA at Cornell is misguided. 2. The idea that you should do a PhD as some kind of last resort is incredibly misguided. A PhD is a multi-year commitment that's hard to get through even if you come in with all the passion in the world. 3. The idea that you would then get a job at a North American University with your PhD that you aren't really passionate about and in a field you didn't actually want to be at is just plain offensive. The academic job market is ridiculously competitive. Those "lesser tier" jobs you're describing will still be highly competitive. The idea that you can go into academia as some kind of backup is just so incredibly misguided. More likely, you'll be miserable and depressed doing something you don't want to do, leading to poor performance, and therefore to failure to get a job (or graduate). Sorry to be harsh, but you have no experience and no actual academic interests. You'll be competing against people who actually want to be where they are. It's tough enough even when you have everything going for you, and almost impossible otherwise. If this is your backup strategy, I highly recommend that you go back to the drawing board.

Not so much. A PhD is a qualification I earned that allows me to pursue the career I am after. It doesn't have intrinsic merit and I don't really care how many others or who specifically has it. People are then judged on their work, not the initials next to their name, and that's what matters. Anyone who's gone through an entire degree just to be able to say that they're a Dr and is then upset by others who they deem unworthy deserve what they have coming. As for the length issue, I would imagine that there's some correlation between length and quality, with obvious exceptions (a dissertation can be brilliant but short, or incredibly boring and long). At the end of the day, though, it's a hurdle you have to jump through to get the degree, and therefore you need to care about what your department (specifically, your committee) will approve as sufficient. Beyond that, depending on field, either you'll take the dissertation and turn it into a book, in which case if it sucks you'll never get a contract; or you publish chapters from it, in which case again if it's not good you'll just need to basically rewrite the entire thing.* Or you don't do anything with it, in which case it did nothing more than meet a minimum standard, and that's okay, but you'll need to ask yourself if that's what you're aiming for, or if you want to aim higher. Just like with everything else in academia -- and life -- it's not always wise to compare yourself to others, and if you choose to do so, you should be careful about the contents of the comparison. * Or you're in a field where your dissertation is a collection of already-published work, in which case obviously what matters is the content of those papers.

This. What's going to be important going forward, if you continue to work with this professor (which I would personally not be too happy to do), is to figure out what his LORs are going to say about your work in his lab. If he is not going to mention things you claim as some of your major accomplishments, well, you see the problem. Again, I suspect somehow that gets worked out assuming that his students do go on to other places and do successful thing, but there are several ways this can come back and bite you, so you should be careful.

Chiming in to agree with the other posters that studying in the US with the goal of getting a job here is a bad idea. Immigration is a hot topic and there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the H1B. I wouldn't risk it, if I were you, there is unfortunately a high likelihood it won't work out like you hope. I'd agree with the others that at the moment, focusing on a country that isn't as hostile to foreigners is a better choice, especially one where it's easier to stay once you've studied there.

This is unfortunate but unless you want to fight this (meaning, going to the powers that be at the university and proving to them that he's claiming your work as his own), having this on your CV might raise questions you don't want to answer. And fighting your advisor, who seems to be a powerful famous person, may not be in your best interest. What I would suggest is approaching him with this question, but phrased slightly differently. Tell him you want to discuss the experience you gained in his lab in your application, and in particular the work you did with your lab mate training others using his technique, and ask him how he would advise you approach it. Assuming that he's been doing this for a while and he's had students successfully go on to other institutions and win fellowships (which I would assume is the case), he's got to have a way of handling this that helps both him and the student. One would also hope that he would have a way of discussing things in his LORs that wouldn't compromise anyone. It's unfair, but it might still be your best shot, so gauge his reaction and follow his lead.

Anybody can, but should they?

I'd suggest asking your department. Usually there will be a grad student only mailing list that you could email to ask questions like how successful they've been with the lottery and how they've liked the housing.

That's always the danger with small programs or subfields. If you go to a department with one or two potential advisors, there's always the risk that something could go wrong. It could be a bad fit, or just that the person gets sick or is denied tenure or takes another job, and you're screwed. Independently -- yes. Fit, fit, fit. It's so important. As for your friend, it doesn't sound like there is any perfect solution. There's a question of how far along they are. Also, if there's a chance of e.g. doing a semester/year as a visitor somewhere else, and maybe doing the actual dissertation writing off-campus, in a place where they're happier. In other words, there's a question of how bad the relationship is and how much time your friend will have to maintain it. It might be worth starting over for their own sanity. Also keep in mind that if your friend wants an academic career, they won't be able to cut off all ties with their advisor once they graduate. They'll need the connections and recommendations that the advisor has to offer. Without the support of the advisor, getting a job will be very hard.

Regardless of rumors and anything else, I think that fit with one's advisor is the best predictor of success in a PhD program. Bad fit leads to all kinds of problems; it could be because of research or personality, through no fault of any one party, or it could be that someone is actually racist/misogynist/etc. My main piece of advice is this: don't expect anyone to change for you. Just like in any other relationship, you either accept the other person with their flaws and you learn to live with them, or you leave. Don't expect your advisor to somehow become a different person for you. They might try, if they are a good person, and there's flexibility especially with young professors who are still figuring out who they are as advisors. There's definitely place for bringing up things that make you unhappy, especially if you also have concrete suggestions for what can change to fix it. But at the end of the day a person is who s/he is; someone who's very hands-on will have a hard time letting go, and someone who has methodological bent A may or may not be able to accommodate students who work with competing theory B. If things aren't working and you don't see a productive way to fix them, *in collaboration with the advisor*, then I personally think that the best thing to do is find support from someone else who's a better fit. The particular arrangement might depend on the specifics of the case (switch advisors/labs, add a second advisor from within the department or an external person, turn to one's committee and count less on the one advisor, transfer, etc). I also think it's better to have someone who's less of a close fit in terms of research, but a better fit in terms of personality. Someone who you get along with and is open to new and different ideas is much better than the expert who makes you hate your life. Bottom line: communication is key; a good advisor is one who wants what's best for you.

Reviving old threads to follow up on questions or point out good advice is fine. My comment was about reviving an old thread for pure publicity purposes, which is both against forum policy and annoying, because often it means posters who aren't paying enough attention might waste their time trying to help someone who's long gone. General discussions are different, of course, and can develop in any thread. For your advice, I kind of wonder if it should always be up to the wronged party to correct others. I'm usually very careful in what I choose to "fight" over, because often it's not worth the energy. I'll take things up with people I work with or have otherwise frequent interactions with, but I don't think it always needs to be my job to educate others.

I trained in Shotokan karate for many years and enjoyed it a lot (though as an adult I haven't been able to keep up, for the most part). It sounds very similar to what you describe: warm up, some training, and some activity, like practice a kata or routine, a new kata, etc. I think the most important thing isn't so much the official name of the technique or school, but what a training session actually looks like, who the instructor is and what the students are like. I'm also not particularly impressed by schools that advertise black belts for all, it's not about the belt anyway. Choose the place where you feel the most comfortable. It sounds to me like that might be the Shotokan option. I'd also suggest not to worry too much about which option is best for someone who is out of shape, it's probably fair to assume that any form of multiple-times-a-week training will do wonders for your overall shape. So yeah, I again just repeat, the one where you felt the most comfortable is the one you're most likely to continue with for the long run. Can you ask to join for one or two sessions before committing for the longer run, and visiting all of these places? That's probably the best way to go, if possible.

Any kind of serious mismatch between advisor and advisee are important to discuss, culture being one of them. Incompatible work styles, expectations from advising, criticism giving/taking, methodological orientation, even expectations concerning number of work hours and which ones the student should spend in the office/lab can cause serious unhappiness on the student's part. It's important to make sure that these compatibility issues are discussed and worked out early on, otherwise this could easily lead to a crisis. It's not enough to have research topic compatibility -- there are actual human beings involved and like in any other case, just because on paper you share interests with someone doesn't mean that in reality you're going to get along with them.

Yes. In preparation, you could also try to see if there is information on the program webpage (description of course requirements, or of a typical first year. But yes, this is what you have an advisor for.)

I agree with others that the output from the lab belongs to the PI and the lab, and hence the PI can decide what to do with the work. This would include allowing other students to use the output, as I see it. However, it should be very clear that the work is yours, and therefore anyone who uses it should allow you the option to be a co-author on the work (you might occasionally decline, but it's your choice). Certainly if you continue to actively contribute to the design and analysis of a project, you should be a co-author on resulting work. So to me the question is a bit less that your work is being used by others in the lab, and more how it is used, and specifically how authorship is determined. Having your work used by others should help your publication record, not hurt it. Your thesis (or other relevant work) should be clearly cited, and your contribution should be acknowledged.

Yep, once I was admitted and accepted my offer (April-ish), there was a long period of silence until probably at least July, if not August. If you have specific questions, you should go ahead and ask them. It's totally reasonable to want to chat with prospective advisors or to want to be put in touch with some current students. You can write someone and ask any questions you have. But beyond that, what you're describing sounds completely normal. Think of this as your first lesson in becoming your own champion and actively pursuing questions and concerns you have. People might hold your hand a whole lot less than you expect, but they will be very happy to help and answer questions, if you ask them.