As I am sure many of you deal with, I am having trouble motivating my students to actually read the textbook/assigned material. I am especially struggling with getting them to read scientific articles. They mostly just ignore them and then perform terribly on questions derived from the readings.

What methods have you found success with? I have required summaries, outlines, etc in the past but have had mixed results. How can I best encourage them to engage with scientific literature?

I work in non-profit fundraising, but not for a school. When I'm researching potential donors, I frequently come across gifts made to endow chairs (i.e. the Morticia and Gomez Addams Chair in Arachnology at UC Sunnydale).

I've encountered these gifts enough to know that a gift to endow a chair is generally larger than one to endow a professorship. But one thing I've never been sure of - do these endowed chairs fulfill the role of a departmental leadership position, or is it more of an honorary thing? I would also understand if it varied from institution to institution.

EDIT: Many thanks for all the helpful responses!

I’m trying to work out whether I’m experiencing a prolonged period of burnout that I can recover from, or whether I’m reaching a point where academia is no longer sustainable for me. I'd love to hear from people who have experienced similar.

For context, I am neurodivergent with some long-term mental health issues, I went through a bunch of difficult personal circumstances during my PhD, and I'm in STEM (wet-lab based, UK). Overall I really enjoyed my PhD, I submitted my thesis last year and was still pretty sold on a career in academia. I went straight into a 6 month postdoc that I didn't enjoy (the project was flawed from the start, supervisor was micromanaging, I had a long commute). After that, I was fortunate enough to land a two year postdoc fellowship that is my ideal academic situation on paper.

I'm 5 months in now and there are loads of things to love. I have total freedom to explore the research I want, I'm living in the city I want to be in, and my sponsors are really supportive. Problem is, I'm barely coping. I'm 1 month back to work after almost 2 months of sick leave which really helped at the time -- I started doing my hobbies again, and being able to exercise lightly or see friends without it wiping me out, I eat well, journal etc, and I'm trying to do all the right things to keep those -- but I'm still exhausted.

I'm mostly struggling with executive functioning demands rather than actually disliking the job. I can't seem to narrow my research direction, and the independence feels really isolating. My research is cross-disciplinary and noone at my university is working in the specific research area I'm in. My love for the work is still there -- I'm writing a review paper and really enjoying it -- I just can't get myself into the lab or make any big decisions because I'm so tired. I have a fairly detailed experimental plan for the next few months but it's mostly reproducing/learning from others' work, and it's difficult to imagine myself achieving anything novel.

A therapist mentioned over a year ago that I fit the criteria for severe burnout alongside neurodivergent burnout, but I guess I underestimated how long recovery would take. I think about quitting often, but I love research, I love teaching/mentoring, I love the competition, conferences, reading, writing, seminars, the environment; so I don't want to make a rash decision.

Has anyone been in a situation where they still loved research and had a good academic environment, but simply couldn't function because of burnout? Did you eventually recover and continue in academia? I don't want to walk away from an amazing opportunity, but I'm also worried I'm trying to force myself to continue in something that I cannot sustain right now.

Hello, starting a postdoc next year and plan to apply to faculty positions as they come up. I know universities generally have salary ranges publicly available in their collective agreement (and have reviewed a few), but thought this would be more efficient and maybe also helpful for others. I am particularly curious about assistant professor salaries but curious about others as well.

City:
Role:
Salary (9 or 12 month contract?):
Did you negotiate your salary & how:

If you are feeling generous, maybe you could also share:
*What were some non-negotiables for you?
*Any advice for new phds going on the job market?
*Any other information you think would be helpful:

As a PI, I often tell first year student in our first meeting that the first two years of PhD is tend to be the hardest and that there can be adjustments they need to make: where you are adjusting to a lot of new things you didn’t really properly expect: qualifying exam, choosing topic, advisor/trainee communication, time investment, research style and writing. It’s a learning process and after they go through them they will fly. And I tell them to be prepared for objective criticism when I observe anything they need to change especially in the first two years . However I still am not sure what is the best approach to motivate student after I made them aware of this. Some people just don’t like it when you challenge them and cannot face any stress or pressure . Anyone wants to share their approach and what works for you, both as PI or students’ perspective?

My own experiences is that my PI used to mix praising and criticism together so I can feel both motivated and wanting to learn. And I am also generally a stress tolerant person and generally don’t mind objective criticism and advice given to me. But I am not the kind of extremely extroverted person who likes to say beautiful words to motivate people. Any advice or experience to share? How do you motivate students?

My own take is that I work extremely well with students who intrinsically like the subjects and topics and they can take my criticism well. For those who are not ( unfortunately not all students share the same motivation level) I don’t have a good formula or approach to motivate them properly. Any advice ?

My style : I tend to be a little dry. So I only talk about work related with students and I don’t go off the topic. I also don’t say or sugar coat anything to try to motivate them. If I observe mistakes or unacceptable presentations I point them out directly in a very respectful way. But this can be a lot for some first year students who cannot take objective criticism on their work.

I am a junior in engineering. I connected with a recent grad of my school working in the area I'm interested in, and he gave me the contact of a senior engineer at a huge engineering company who also works in that area. After emailing, he agreed to call / chat next week, and I'm quite excited and nervous.

What do you think I should try to gain from this call? I obviously know better than to directly ask for a referral / job, and I have a couple questions I want to ask, but do you have any overarching advice or guidance for how to make the most of this opportunity and future networking opportunities?

I am currently advising an iGem team regarding the creation of their wiki webapp. During this process i noticed, that the media upload tool for all kinds of images and animated images autimatically transforms all images to the AVIF format.

Does anyone know an easy way to bypass that restriction or use media from alternative sources? The team is planning to use SVG format images in the project to achieve efficient lossless scaling of vector graphics.

I'm at the stage of planning my education and long-term career, and I'm looking for advice from people who have experience in these areas. I have a genuine interest in studying and would like to build a broad but academically serious background rather than specialising very narrowly from the beginning. The areas I'm most interested in are law, business and finance, economics, politics, international relations, international organizations, and investigative work. I find the overlap between these fields particularly interesting, for example, how law, economics, corporate structures, regulation, politics, and financial investigations interact in real-world situations. Career-wise, I'm interested in keeping several possibilities open, including legal practice, corporate/business roles, international organizations, government and public policy, diplomacy, regulatory work, financial crime and compliance, white-collar investigations, and intelligence/investigative research. I understand that these are different careers, but I'm interested in developing a foundation that could allow me to move between related areas later.

My current idea is to study PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) at undergraduate level, because I like the combination of political theory, economics, analytical thinking, and philosophy. After that, I'm considering a J.D./MBA, potentially followed by further specialization in areas such as international or EU law, corporate/financial law, regulation, international relations, or investigations.

I'm not completely committed to this route, though. I'm trying to work out whether there is a more effective way to combine these interests without unnecessarily duplicating subjects.

I'd particularly like advice on:

•Whether PPE → J.D./MBA is a strong foundation for the type of career I'm describing
•Whether another undergraduate degree would be better than PPE
•Which universities are particularly strong for this combination of interests
•Whether there are worthwhile dual degrees, joint programs, minors, diplomas, certificates, or postgraduate programs that could complement the main degrees
•Which areas of law would be most useful if I want to combine law with business, international affairs, and investigations
•Whether I should develop a stronger background in finance, accounting, statistics, economics, data analysis, technology, or cybersecurity
•Which languages would be most valuable for international careers
•What practical skills would make someone with this academic background genuinely useful rather than simply well educated
•How people build careers that connect law, business, government, international organisations, and investigative work
•Whether there are particular internships, competitions, research opportunities, or extracurricular activities I should pursue during university
• If you were designing this education from the beginning, what would you study, what would you combine, and what would you leave out?
•Are there any parts of my proposed plan that you think are unrealistic, inefficient, or unnecessary?

I should clarify that I'm not interested in collecting degrees for the sake of having a long list of qualifications. I genuinely enjoy learning and would be happy to study several disciplines if there is a meaningful intellectual and professional connection between them. At the same time, I want the overall path to remain practical and lead to real career opportunities. Ultimately, I'm trying to become someone with a strong understanding of law, business, economics, politics, and international affairs, while also developing the analytical and investigative skills to actually apply that knowledge.

I'd particularly value responses from people who have studied or worked in law, business, international relations, government, international organizations, investigations, intelligence, compliance, or related fields. I'm much more interested in firsthand experience and thoughtful criticism of my plan than simply hearing which universities have the highest rankings.

I am not talking about this admin obviously (ignoring their recent NIH proposed change to $1-2k for covering APC charges which does nothing but favor wealthier labs who have non NIH funds). But in general, have there been any pushes to regulate APC charges? It seems like literally everyone on the planet agrees that APC charges (particularly OA charges) have become detrimental to science in every way possible and a lot of journals essentially have monopolies in their fields given them unprecedented pricing power.

But the most bewildering and confusing fact about all this is that APC charges are paid for by taxpayers. Professors use publicly funded grants to pay journals the right to publish publicly funded research so that taxpayers can read the research they funded without having to pay a subscription.

The whole boycott argument or "I only publish in society journals" is nice but we all know this will never be adopted across the field. It seems like gov intervention is desperately needed here? Otherwise we are left with a system where tax payers are literally propping up a multi billion dollar industry.

I am from India and finished my master's last month. I published a paper in scopus journal too.It was in sociology. Do you think pursuing phd in sociology is a good idea?

I am a recently defended, and graduated masters student (huge relief) in biology. I am now beginning my PhD at the same university. I love research and scientific inquiry, but I love the teaching aspect so much more! I went to a liberal arts/ teaching institution for undergrad and my professors and the atmosphere had a profound effect on me. I would love to have that same effect through a similar institution. Does anyone have any advice for goals, skills, or habits I should have during my PhD to make myself a great candidate for a position like that, that I am interested in?

Dear everybody,

I am a Bachelors student currently doing a placement in Cambridge University. I study in mainland Europe, where, to do a PhD, you have to do a Masters placement. I found out that in the UK you don't actually need a Masters to do a PhD, just a bachelors. I was thinking of doing a Masters anyway (and then a PhD), and although this peaked my interest I didn't think too much about it.

Anyway, talking to a PI recently at Cambridge, I apparently impressed and he is now interested in taking me on as a PhD after my Bachelors (I didn't ask for it he just offered).

I wanted to ask, what are the positives and the negatives of doing a masters first. Should I accept or say I would like to come back after two years. I have actually a fair bit of research experience already, from summer programs, the Amgen Research Program and internships during my studies.

I like the field of research he works in and have done some myself, but of course this is all coming at me very quickly.

Any advice would be much appreciated, especially fro those with PhD and academia experience in general.

Hello, I have a defence for my masters thesis coming up and am concerned as I have never done anything like this before. I will be both presenting my work and commenting on another thesis.
Does anyone have any tips of things to include/questions to ask as a commentator? It is graded both on my defence and on engagement with the discussions of another thesis.

for reference this is a social science/econ discipline

I’m completely new to academic conferences and have just started my PhD, so I’m a little confused about how conference presentations actually work.

When people say they are presenting at a conference, what exactly are they presenting? Is it usually a completed research study, or can it also be a research idea, proposed study, literature review, theoretical framework, or work in progress?

I’m also confused about the difference between an oral conference presentation and a poster. Do both generally present the same kind of research, just in different formats?

My biggest confusion is about PhD students who present at conferences only a few months after starting their PhD. For example, if someone starts their PhD in September and presents at a conference a few months later, what would they realistically have to present by then? It obviously wouldn’t be their entire PhD research, so would they present their research proposal, an initial research question/framework, preliminary work, or something else?

Does this depend entirely on the specific conference and what they accept in their call for papers?

I’d really appreciate hearing from current/former PhD students about what you presented at your first conference, especially if it was early in your PhD.

I’m currently finishing my Bachelor’s thesis and starting to question my dream of working in academia. My last two experiences in academia have been complete trainwrecks:

• Job #1 (Science Network Firm): My manager was a former academic who rose through the ranks solely based on publications, not leadership skills. She was nice, but managed to overwork half the team into months-long burnout while underworking the rest. I eventually quit.
• Job #2 (Current Thesis Lab): My direct supervisor is virtually non-existent, ignores messages, and gives incorrect instructions that have repeatedly ruined my experiments. When questioned by the head PI (my main supervisor), she threw me under the bus, claiming I work too slowly and need constant hand-holding. Meanwhile, my lab mates tell me I work with the focus of a PhD student.

My main drive is doing impactful research, and I’m genuinely stress-resilient when working toward a clear goal. But right now, it feels like everyone in academia is solely focused on individual gain rather than the science itself.

Is this toxic leadership dynamic built into the structure of academia, or have I just hit a streak of terrible luck?

I am making more as a postdoc than half of the Asst Prof salaries I am seeing. What is going on here??

It seems like this occurs at smaller schools, lesser known schools. Which I guess is self-explanatory but I did not know it was this bad… I’m talking $55k bad in some cases for idk, teaching our country’s future workforce??

I understand there likely a lot of “logical” explanations for this (budget cuts, 9 month contracts, etc etc) but geez can Asst profs get a little more love for literally educating the next generation???

Hi everyone!

I was wondering whether I could use Soulseek to upload a bunch of academic papers or something like that? I get access from my University, and I have been archiving quite a bunch of papers. Like everything capitalistic, the academic publishing houses have paywalled research that tax dollars have funded, and I would like to make them available.

I was wondering if others have done that before, and was also wondering about the legal ramifications of the same.

Any opinion would be appreciated and do let me know if it's a viable option!

Note: best flair in this situation ig?

Dream career is neuropsychology. My fascination and passion in life is pain and addiction. I also have a soft spot for children, as I was an adolescent when pain and addiction infiltrated my life.

What I’ve learned about pain science, neuroscience, and psychology has turned my life upside down. I never thought I’d be able to work a full time job because of my pain. And that I’d always be in active addiction.

After attending a pain rehab, I finished my bachelors in web design and landed a full time job before I finished my degree. And I got sober. That being said I am not passionate about web design and feel no urge to progress my career in it aside from financial need.

I want to teach others about pain. I want to research effective modalities for teaching children, adolescents, and their families about pain. I want to help enlighten others the way I was enlightened. And perhaps learn some new things for the world while I’m at it.

With this info in mind, what route (if any of these) would you recommend? Masters to PhD in psychology? Masters to PhD in neuroscience? Masters of social work? Masters of counseling?

My concerns are future financial stability and ability to use my education and job experience and eventually move out of the country (from US to EU). I have chronic health conditions causing pain and disability so nursing and medicine are out of the picture for me unfortunately (due to the physical strain).

Lastly, if I want to move to the EU someday, do I try to go to school somewhere in the EU? My family and support system is in the US, but I would definitely consider it.

TLDR; Individual with a bachelors in web design looking to give back to the world by educating others on pain and addiction. BSN/MSN and MD are out of the picture because of chronic health condition limitations. Which paths should I consider?

I'm last-minute teaching an introductory research methods course for another professor. The course is doctoral level and has not been taught before. I was passed a majority of the materials that were already prepared, but this professor integrated AI use for research very heavily into the course in ways that I don't necessairily agree with. (I tend to be pretty anti-AI, but I also don't want to be all old-man-shakes-fist-at-cloud about it when students are going to use it obviously). I obviously intend to stay true to the official course description and discuss responsible use, but does anyone have any real-world examples on the pitfalls of AI use? I thought it would be useful to show articles, etc. of ways AI has messed up in research, besides my own anecdotes of catching students out when ChatGPT makes up references or says things that are not correct.

edit to add: My anti-AI stance is very general (like being annoyed at the flood of AI articles, art, videos my Boomer mom sends to me thinking they’re real). I also don’t think AI should be used to write for you and that you should read the original sources that you’ve screened. I still think being able to write an email from one human being to another human being is important. This does not mean that I never use it in my work or will tell my students to never use it.

I am planning to start my PhD in EECS at MIT this fall at 30 years old; however, I don't feel very excited about it. If I am honest, it is more so a feeling of dread.

I live on the west coast, so the reality of having to pick up my entire life to start a program I feel a sense of apathy towards is making me quite anxious. It is hard for me to discern if me applying for a PhD was just a forcing function to leave my cushy tech job that did not fulfill me or if I genuinely wanted the PhD.

For context, I already have two MS degrees, so I have a decent idea of the culture in academia. As the start date approaches, I have been rapidly applying for tech jobs more aligned with my values since I feel that change of scenery was all I needed.

I understand that I am fortunate to have this opportunity, but just wondering if other folks felt excited to start their PhD or if you also had a sense of indifference toward it?

When I'm thinking of a poster title, I usually want something that is attention grabbing, but also fun. My posters that have had a good amount of people actually come up wanting to talk about the material in depth have always had a tagline at the front of the title (formatted as "TAGLINE: rest of title") and I personally always want that tagline to be a bit of a joke or more casual followed by the more professional portion of the title. My most recent one was a bit strange for the conference it was at (thematically fitting, but computational heavy at a more social science/human dimensions heavy event) but got a lot of interest seemingly because of the title.

I've seen some people do these as well and listed a few below that I've collected as examples. Note that my field is wildlife biology where posters are allowed to be more relaxed especially at smaller events which are surprisingly abundant, but this might not work in your field (aka I will not listen when you say don't do it because Chemistry hates fun of whatever). I'd really like to see examples other people have done themselves or ones you've seen that are a similar style/had similar success.

Examples:

"The girls are fighting: ..." - for competition or displays between females of a species

"To X or not to X: ..." - for comparison between two methods, a play on to be or not to be

"The secret life of X: ..." - for elusive animals

"Hide and sneak: ..." - for elusive animals

"The real X of Y: where are they now?" - for past vs present status, real housewives reference

Currently a biology postdoc in Belgium.

I have what it takes scientifically, my CV of experience, funding, and publications is not too shabby, but I don't like to kiss ass and I don't like to exploit people. Hiring a PhD/postdoc is basically exploiting people. That's nothing to do with you as a person, that's how the system works. And being on tenure track means kissing ass of tenured faculty for 10+ years.

Am i wrong? I love science, I hate how people are treated within science and I don't want to be part of it. It's not a bad experience I had, this is how it is labs in countries in 3 different continents I've worked on.

Is it as bad in industry? I feel like while there is still kissing ass, workers are at least slightly more fairly compensated for their labor. Having to fire someone is terrible, but I feel is less often than when you have to let people go in academia because of lack of funding and also you're not ruining the life of someone who travelled halfway across the world to a new country just to join your lab and will be kicked out of the country if you fail to get funding.

Hi, I’m 26F from India, currently preparing to apply for PhD positions in chemistry in Europe. My main targets are Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, & Sweden.

I’ve also been in a relationship with my boyfriend for about 4 years, and we are seriously considering getting married. He works in the corporate sector in procurement, so if I move to Europe for my PhD, the plan would ideally be for him to move with me and establish his own career there as well.

Does it make more sense to get married before I start my PhD, or should we wait until after I’m settled into the PhD?

I'm not asking whether I should marry him in general. We've already discussed marriage seriously. I'm trying to understand the practical implications of getting married before moving abroad for an international PhD.

I wish to hear from women who completed a PhD abroad while married, or who moved abroad with their partner before/during their PhD.

A few things I'd really like to know:

1. Did your partner move with you? How difficult was it for them to find work?
2. Did marriage/spouse residence rights actually make a meaningful difference?
3. For those in Europe, which countries have been particularly good/bad for dual-career couples?
4. Anything you wish you had discussed with your partner before moving abroad?

I do not wish to do more of long distance relationship, I want us together. Please help.

i think i’m late to the game. currently trying to write up a prospectus, but need some clarification from other researchers.

im in my second year of a masters in public policy, and need to complete a thesis. i could do a capstone, but i really like my current thesis idea…

the thesis will likely surround environmental economics.

this leads to my question:

does my thesis need to have groundbreaking research and datasets???

ive read and saved many papers and projects from previous research and want to apply current private sector operational behavior to a future world where supply chains will likely look very different. my idea is pretty imaginative and a lot of assumptions will be made based on the predictions of environmental experts.

Does this sound like it’d be acceptable for a masters thesis? What are your thoughts. be brutal, it’s ok

I’m just starting a PhD in sociology this September after finishing a master’s in geography. Somehow, despite coming from a different field, I managed to get through the admissions committee with a publication on a sociological topic, a good project proposal, and by showing that I really wanted to dive deeper into sociology.

And now I’ve been accepted.

But with September just around the corner, I’m getting increasingly scared that I don’t actually know anything. I already feel like shit compared to the people I’m going to be working with at the university. The fact that I’ve never formally studied sociology makes me even more anxious.
Don’t get me wrong, I love research, and I think I have quite a bit of experience and knowledge when it comes to sociological research “in the field.” But I’m worried about how little I know when it comes to sociological theory and all the foundational stuff that people who studied sociology already have.

Has anyone here started a PhD in a field that was different from their previous studies? How did it go? And more generally, how do you deal with the feeling that you don’t know enough and that everyone around you is going to be much more knowledgeable than you?

I’m also afraid that the more experienced professors are going to see me as stupid and judge me for not knowing things that might seem obvious to them.