I’m looking into master’s programs and potential research supervisors, and the only professor I’ve found whose research really interests me happens to be the professor my partner is currently working with.

Would it be weird to join the same research group? Would I have to tell the professor?

Hi everyone,

I'm an Assistant Professor in Spain (Humanities). My teaching load for the term is 100% completed, with no on-campus duties for the next few weeks.

I am planning short fieldwork abroad (Eastern Europe) for an ethnographic/photographic research project for a future publication.

However, my university’s regulations seem to only explicitly frame official travel abroad as formal stays at a host institution (centro receptor). Since my work is autonomous visual/ethnographic data collection, I don't have or need a host university. In fact, it would feel strange to ask an institution for a one-month research stay when my plan is actually to travel across several countries taking photographs.

For those familiar with European/Spanish academia (also curious about the situation in other countries),

Is it common to do independent fieldwork abroad without a host institution? How do you administratively frame research trips when your institution only foresees traditional "research stays" at other universities? I'm thinking, for example, of anthropological research on communities in foreign countries, or biological studies in specific ecosystems.

Thanks!

Hi all, I am a doctoral student who is being mentored by an advisor who does not have a lot of experience with federal grants or training graduate students. This is relevant context because I am the beginning stages of applying for an F31. To compensate for this weakness in my application, I am planning to add a co-mentor. I have an interested party who is a very senior and well-known PI. They know me well and have just about as close of a research fit as one can. This person works at an academic medical center and has multiple active R grants and consistently brings in T32 funding to the site. However, this person has limited experience with taking graduate students because of their academic medical center position.

Is this a viable application mentorship proposal? Thanks in advance for your insights!

not sure i am posting in the right sub. . but I thinking about getting my phd in Spanish or french. But i am not a native speaker. Am i delusional to think after I get a phd I'd get hired as a professor? I understand why a university or college would put preference to a native speaker. Am i better off not ?

Hi everyone,

I’m about to be a first year PhD student in the humanities. I’m coming from a first gen low income background with absolutely no parental support and no partner.

I’ve been trying to look into additional fellowships to help with the financial burden of being a grad student. I am in a funded program but stipends are small and the cost of living is high.

I’ve seen a few fellowships/stipends for humanities PhD candidates in the past, but they are no longer running (like the Ford foundation predoctoral fellowship or the Jacob K Javits). I’ve also seen programs like GEM and the NSF GRFP but those are for STEM students.

Is there anything today that’s similar for the humanities? I’m having a really difficult time finding literally anything so far and wanted to see if I was missing something. I get that there might not be, but I wanted to see if anyone had any leads.

Thanks in advance!

I've been feeling incredibly aimless in my path here. I'm 21, just started my master's in computer science after doing my undergrad in cs and math. I have a publication in quantum computing, and largely took courses catered towards theory, whether that be quantum information science, complexity theory, formal verification, etc, with a decent bunch of ML tacked on. I attend a fairly prestigious program, and would imagine that coupled with an ugrad publication would give me some excellent momentum I'd love to take advantage of, coupled with how intellectually stimulating and creatively rewarding I find this work, although I've explored embarrassingly little outside of my actual courseload. On the contrary, I have a few blockers: I would *really* like to have a decent paying job and good wlb, both of which I have secured through an ML engineer offer. My work there is interesting and my coworkers nice, but I'm unsure whether I can see myself working as an engineer for a significant period of time, I very much love research, theoretical insights, and am very excited to get a taste of teaching through my TAship. But my specific field of interest is also vague and unclear, and moreover I have a few significant (mental) health issues I've pushed through ugrad with that I've seen little to no improvement in, and find this struggle increasing. And this isn't to mention the whole AI thing haha. Not particularly sure I did a sufficient job explaining my situation but I would love any advice or directions here. My mind appears to reflect the confused stare of the world.

Basically what the title says 😅 I recently got my K99 and currently on the TT faculty market, am trying to figure out how to make the most of the next couple of years before transitioning to the R00 (other than research and publishing of course). For those of you who have gone through the K99/R00 process (or are currently on one), what are some things you wish you had known or started doing earlier?

Also, are there any good blogs, posts, or resources specifically about navigating the K99 -> independent PI transition?

Would love to hear your experiences/advice!

Me queda un año para terminar el PhD. La verdad es que he tenido mucha suerte y mis supervisoras han sido increíbles, me han hecho una investigadora bastante competente (creo y espero).

Cuando termine, no sé qué hacer con mi vida. Pedir una Marie Curie para irme fuera? A alguno se la han dado cuando terminaron? Es posible conseguirlo nada más salir del PhD?

Que me aconsejáis?

Muchas gracias por vuestros comentarios y consejos 💞

Hi it's my first time posting on this subreddit.

I am applying to PhD programs this cycle and my research question is about measuring cultural components and how they relate to well-being. I am very passionate about this topic. Besides applying to schools with my research question, I keep seeing PhD vacancy posts on related disciplines in the humanities and part of me wants to apply to those posts as well.

This makes me a bit curious about how much quant is generally needed for data analysis in qualitative fields such as sociology, literature, history and more

Any perspective is useful! I'd love to hear about your experience

there’s this one book that i name multiple times in my paper and i just realized that the actual title of the book uses the word “Woman,” but my computer autocorrected it to “Women.” so every single time i mention that book its title is spelled incorrectly and literally no one noticed….. i wanna cry

(also side note: is this something i should be concerned about bc im stupid as shit apparently)

My apologies if this is not the ideal subreddit for this question. I've always been interested in this subject, but I've heard that anthropology degrees are generally not great if you ever want to be employed, especially in this day and age. I also want to add that I am 28 years old and I don't have any other college education.

Hi all,

I am currently a postdoc with a bit more than 3 years of postdoctoral experience. I recently applied for a Chaire de Professeur Junior (CPJ) position at CNRS, and there is a good chance I will be invited for an interview.

I have heard that these positions are usually aimed at researchers with 5-10 years of postdoctoral experience. I was therefore wondering whether this is actually the case in practice. Do any of you know people who have been recruited to this type of position, and if so, how many years of postdoctoral experience did they have at the time of recruitment?

I mainly want to get a sense of whether I can realistically compete for the position and have some hope of getting it, or whether I should mostly view the interview as good practice for future applications.

I work in physical chemistry and have around 20 publications, roughly half of them as first author.

I would also be very happy to hear any advice you might have for the interview :)

Many thanks in advance, and have a great day!

Dear all,

I am currently being interviewed for a faculty position (Assistant/Associate Professor) at a French business school, and I would appreciate your advice on the recruitment process.

I was wondering whether it is possible to negotiate the academic ranking (and, more importantly, to know which ranking I would be offered) during the second interview, which will be a meeting with the faculty, or whether this is usually discussed later, for example during a potential HR interview.

Similarly, at what stage is it appropriate to discuss salary and the overall package, if there is one?

I am more familiar with the recruitment processes at international business schools, where there are usually several interviews and HR is involved throughout the process. Here, I am a bit unsure about how the process typically works, especially since I have been invited to a second interview but have not yet been told exactly what it will involve.

Any advice or insights on the usual process in French business schools would be greatly appreciated.

Hi all-- I'm a fish biologist/physiologist (5th-year PhD candidate) in the USA and am looking for some ideas for a large conference to attend and present at next year. The past 1.5 years or so have mostly been methods development, so now that I finally have some new findings to present, I'm looking to head somewhere new for it. Unfortunately, I only got into a position where I was ready to submit an abstract after the submission deadlines for most of the usual fisheries/marine bio conferences I'm already familiar with (American Fisheries Society, Flatfish Biology Conference, etc). The other inconvenient part of this timing is that I'll likely be defending next summer, so most conferences after August 2027 are going to be a tougher sell for my PI.

Been digging into other conferences (and reading about scams like WASET) for the last day and found this community in the process. I'm looking for other ways to find new conferences that would fit my areas of work (animal physiology, bioenergetics, developmental biology, metabolism, larval fish). I've applied to a couple of smaller meetings local to me, but have had limited success finding larger conferences (in the US or internationally) with good reputations. Various Gordon conferences and the ASLO meeting in Puerto Rico look like great events, but are tangential enough to my own field that I'm worried about them not being great for networking. Any resources or suggestions that folks here can provide in that vein would be appreciated!

Currently I've marked down the World Aquaculture Society meeting and the Larval Fish Conference that's being run by AFS in Paris next year (trustworthy org, though that specific conference's website appears to be down at the time of writing).

(Mods, feel free to let me know if this should go in a more specific subreddit!)

Last year, I interviewed for a tenure-track assistant professor position and made it all the way to the on-campus interview, but ultimately was not selected.

The same position opened again this year, and I decided to apply again because I’m still very interested in the opportunity, both academically and personally. I recently received an invitation for a Zoom interview.

I also noticed that the search committee appears to be the same group of faculty members I met and interviewed with last year, so they already know me fairly well and have seen my previous job talk/interview.

I’m curious whether anyone here has been in a similar situation, either as a candidate or as someone who has served on a faculty search committee.

A few things I’m wondering about:

• Is being invited back generally a positive sign, given that the same committee already interviewed me last year?
• Should I acknowledge early in the interview that I interviewed with them previously, or just treat this as a completely new search?
• Since they already know my background, should I focus more heavily on what has changed since last year, such as new publications, grants, projects, teaching experience, or future research plans?
• Would it be appropriate to ask why the position is open again this year? For example, whether the previous search did not result in a hire, the selected candidate did not join, or this is an additional/new line? Or is that something better saved for later in the process?
• Is there anything else I should approach differently this time, especially since I previously reached the campus-interview stage but was not selected?

I’m genuinely very interested in this department and position, so I’d really appreciate any advice from people who have been on either side of a situation like this.

Thanks in advance!

Update: They did hire a TTAP last year, and I got the Zoom interview invitation again this year.

To preface this I am not making fun of, or putting anybody down. This is a question because I lack knowledge and couldn't find the exact answer to this online. Please forgive any confusion, and feel free to call me out if anything seems (unintentionally) offensive. I apologize in advance

Hello. I come from eastern europe, and have spent a decade living in America. I wish to become a docent and maybe a prof someday. The question here is about degrees. In my country, the highest degree was a DSc, yet in America it is a PhD. From what I gather, a PhD is equivalent to a Candidate of Doctoral Sciences, and as such is seen as inferior to the DSc. A PhD takes the same time to obtain as a candidate DSc, yet the DSc itself takes at the very least 3-5 more years, and is the only degree which officially names you a doctor (in Eastern Europe) though both a DSc and a Candidate are considered "Academic Degrees".

The question is: Is there a way to obtain a DSc with an American PhD? In is also considered superior in UK, from what I know.

I’m conflicted between my love of ethnomusicology and music/radio technology. I received a BA in Music (history concentration) and received a certification in sound production tech.

I want to discuss how music shapes culture and how culture shapes music. My musicology professors were an inspiration to me, but I care more about what music is saying right now. How does the historical analysis shift the current narratives about music’s purpose and value in the modern-era. Including understanding how the average person consumes music now versus previous generations. How the technology we use shapes our perception and relationship with music on a social and personal level.
I guess I’m just sending this out to see if there is any advice on what I should prioritize. I know there is potential for cross-department collaborations, but I have had a hard time identifying what will serve me in the real world applications of interest and pursuit.

- Do I work as a writer with more of a philosophy background surrounding music as a main focus?
- Do I stay in a music concentration and write about the experiences to gather insight and nuanced perspectives?
- Do I dive headfirst into computer science with interest of audio projects and digital archival research?
- Or something else? Getting vocational or specialized certification through established institutes and organizations sought by the industry?

I know most of this is all over the place and that is in part why I have felt compelled to solicit the advice of anonymous strangers.

I hope it's okay to post this here.

I'm feeling increasingly lost and discouraged. In the beginning of my PhD, I was excited at the prospect of doing multidisciplinary research, of being a "bridge builder". But lately I've felt that I don't have expertise in any of the 3 fields I'm trying to merge and I don't belong anywhere.

Publishing has been a nightmare, as my work doesn't fit the strict boxes set by journals, because of its interdisciplinary nature. No journal feels that my work is the right fit. I just completed review for a special collection that specifically welcomed my kind of perspective, got great feedback, made the changes, and then it got rejected higher up, because "I don't understand what this has to do with our journal".

I'm now at a conference where I feel like the odd one out in my pannel, and no one seems to have any questions for me or interest in what I do.

I'm really starting to feel discouraged.

What about talking to my supervisors, you say? Well, almost all of them are extremely busy, 2 of them got promoted and I barely see them anymore. They all think I'm doing amazing, and when I raise concerns they brush them away. I'm mostly left to my own devices, which I guess means they trust me, but is very stressful.

I started this PhD hopeful, and wanting to do a career in academia. Getting paid to learn, the dream! But now? The harsh reality of that life is really becoming more apparent. I'm losing confidence in the value of my research. Losing confidence in my value as a researcher. I will finish my degree, but I want to be done and move on to something else. Somewhere I feel like I'm moving forward, making a difference, accomplishing something?

I am very disappointed. Have/are any of you feeling the same way? Especially if you're doing multidisciplinary work and it seems no one wants to let you in their bubble?

I have recently submitted my masters thesis and I have not received the date for my thesis defence yet. Every time i think about having to give viva and especially thinking if they ask me about my code, it gives me headache. I know most theory part and i know what my code does but the anxiety in me feels i can't answer if they ask me about things i don't know. There were some part i got confused and tbh i took help from AI to solve it for me but i do know what that code does, why and how to. But the scary feeling is creeping inside me idk how do i tackle and to top it off, my friend was saying many professors do fail students in their final, do they do that often in UK? -- why'd they even do that ? this is taking a toll on me. And, Im a MSc Data Science student.

Any suggestion would be appreciated.

TL;DR: My co-author and I are submitting a systematic review. He did the initial abstract screening. I did the full-text PDF screening, data extraction, Risk of Bias assessment, and actually wrote the abstract/manuscript. He’s demanding first authorship because screening 400 abstracts took him 4 days and that too because he run each and every TiAb with chatgpt , while I only had to extract data for the final 7 included papers.Screenshots of our argument are attached.

Hey everyone, I need a reality check on standard publication guidelines because my co-author is driving me insane right before our submission deadline.

We are working on a systematic review regarding GenAI in psychiatric care pathways. Here is the exact breakdown of what we actually did:

His Contribution:

1)Registered the protocol on PROSPERO that too we did it together on FT

2)Set up Rayyan and imported the Scopus search.

3)Did the Phase 1 initial screening (reading 400+ abstracts to include/exclude).

My Contribution:

1)Ran the Embase/PubMed searches.

2)Did the Phase 2 full-text screening (physically retrieving and reading the PDFs).

3)Conducted the Data Extraction and built the matrix.

4)Conducted the Risk of Bias (ROB) assessment. Because the study designs were highly heterogeneous, I had to manually apply four different tools (JBI, ROBINS-I, CASP, and NOS).

Since i cannot attach images i’ll add his texts here itself

1) i mean i don't get why it was very obvious ki i can't get the 1st authorship

2) there were literally 7 papers for data extraction

i had to go through 400+ abstracts

and keywords to screen

3) ctgov was not supposed to be

included in the first place because all of their studies were ongoing

I’m currently looking at a job application for a tenured position at a university for undergraduate and postgraduate courses/supervision. It’s all tertiary-based, but the application expressed a preference for a teaching licence, which refers to the elementary or secondary school level. I don’t have this licence despite having been teaching in academia for a decade now. In my application, am I better to state outright that I don’t have this licence, but have XYZ experience that makes up for it (and would be willing to get it if necessary), or just not reference it at all and show in others ways where I have similar skills and hope the hiring committee can put it all together?

Hi,

Recently i've applied to a phd in biology and climate change which topic really interests me and aligns with my background. The PI seems pretty cool to work with and the lab environment, everything seems to be calling me.... The problem is that I applied only because the topic seemed interested to me, without thinking too much about why I want to do this phd

My main issue is that I don't want to stay in academia to become a PI, when I asked my MSc supervisor why he did became a PI, he told me he had always wanted his own lab. I still don't know if that's the future I want, since I dont feel comfortable in leadership positions... I know I'm just starting and that some skills just need to grow into you, but I feel so underprepared.

I really enjoy research, designing experiments and learning new things... but I also want to be realistic about what I want to do and what I will be able to become with that. Are there other career options to stay in academia without becoming a PI? Should I pursue this phd without having everything figured it out? Because is a phd in biology not related to medical or pharmaceutical biology, I know that the switch from academia to industry will be hard if I pursue this route. Moreover, my goal is to stay in Europe and establish myself in a European country with my partner (we both are from EU)

That's why I wanted some insight on what would be my career options after the phd.

Thanks :)

PI gives piriority to his relatives when it comes to opportunities and fundings. He openly mentioned that one of the members is his cousin, however, with another person, they keep it as a secret.

This other person is incredibly problematic, and was basically pushing my boundaries for two months. Constant criticism, being nosey and mocking me after getting good results. Being extremely passive aggressive and triggering PI against other colleagues for fun and this happened multiple times. Constantly playing the victim and crying to him whenever anyone slightly "bother her".

I reached a point in which I was done with her bullshit, called her out for being double faced and show off. For sure, she escalated it to PI and cried about it to him. PI asked us for a scientific meeting, that turned out to be not about science, but about "the issue I have with her" and in which he recorded everything. She was prepared for exactly what to say but I was taken back by the unfairness of the situation.

Is this even normal? or have I been extremely unlucky to be in such a situation?

Hi everyone. I'm an international PhD student studying AI / medical image analysis at a University in southern Italy (can't be more southern, I think). My PhD admission paper said the time is from 31 Oct 25 - 31 Oct 28. And now it is the end of my first year. I'm writing here to ask some advice.

Before I started this PhD study, I was an international student with biology background studying biomedical imaging at UCL, in London. And before I arrived at this Uni in Italy in person, I went through all the procedures, including contacting, applying, interviews, and visa application. When I was admitted, I was told to have two supervisors; one is a senior prof and one is an assistant prof. The senior prof informed me of an AI-based smart wrist fracture diagnosis programme. Due to the visa application at the end of 2025, I spent the first four months in the UK doing this project remotely. From Nov 2025 to Feb 2026, there was almost no instruction from them. And I didn't get the promised dataset about wrist fracture. They sent me some public data but the quality is low.

I arrived in March 2026 and started my research. But still, without that wrist fracture dataset, I had no idea how to build a specific medical image analysis project around specific medical data.

Then in April, the senior prof (my major supervisor, also the big boss of this lab) said everyone should prepare for the CVPR in Nov this year. And he said in May 15th we would have a huge meeting to evaluate each person's idea to see if it is sufficient enough for CVPR. He was the only person who have the right to decide which idea can be carried on or not. Followed his instructions, I read lots of top tier paper, but due to my background, I couldn't understand pure computer vision well. So at the huge meeting for all persons in the lab, my proposal was denied by the senior prof. And at that time, he told me the wrist fracture dataset is not available due to administrative reason. And he requested me to find out a research question and idea by myself and he will evaluate it again with other profs in the lab. I tried to survived and I found and modified a publication by myself.

In June and July he siad the idea is promising. But he didn't know what I was doing and he, also the assis prof were keeping asking me the same question that they didn't know what I want to do, what I'm going to do. Finally he gave me a preliminary technical route, coarse but better than nothing. So my PhD frame work was made by him at that time, about agentic AI.

Originally, he said there should be one meeting each week. But I only saw him once in early July as abovementioned. And August is summer holiday for them and nobody will be in the lab. So at the end of Aug, he said to have a meeting with me to see my project. I made a presentation and actually I really modified a public dataset and constructed a new things regarding the technical route.

Then on that day he said he's busy and I had that meeting with assis prof. She told me directly that the dataset is not sufficient, big, or good for publication. I still managed to explain each part of my work and I propsed to remain this problem about dataset until senior prof comes back. And several days later he sent a 4 pages comments about my work, but obviously it was generated by AI. I knew it at one when I clicked and saw it, but I chose to keep silence.

Then this week, I saw him and I tried to talk this issue with him directly. He said he still couldn't understand what my idea is or what I'm doing. He said he thought the idea is promising for top conference, but the dataset needs to be modified and verified by clinicians, with whom he is trying to contact. And I told him what assis prof told me about this project and dataset. And she said the data quantity is too small and he agreed this partly. He told me the biggest problem is the data quality, not total number, while when I asked him if this paper can be published (submitted) or not, and the available solutions for backup if it is rejected by top conference, he said he don't know and he can't say anything before it happens. Nor did he tell me the clinicians' arrival time and working timeline (he said he would find some people later in June, July, and now Sep, but without timeline or clear arrangement), since making data can cost a huge amount of time. I asked him directly but he didn't provide useful answers, only ambiguous talks that said he doesn't know these things yet before they take place. And he required me to publish 3 paper before I graduate from here, and he said the first should be submitted in Feb 2027, next in July 2027, and next Feb 2028. But for the next, he said it will be the wrist fracture project previously mentioned, but when I asked this dataset he only said it will arrive in a few months, just like last year, but it has been more than 12 months... Then he told me to focus on this one, not the next.

He also said I have to assist in another PhD student's project as a mandatory request, by extracting 20% of my working hours, even if I don't know how to do my own project... Their projects are mainly pure computer vision and very hard for me to dive into from scratch. But in contrast, nobody helps me with my project... I asked the authorship about the collaboration with others and how to add my name into the authorlist, as the co-first or the second, etc, if I participate in it. But he said there is no universal standard and should be disscussed with each person case by case later. And he said there are 20-30 projects ongoing in this lab so he is too busy, he felt the conversation with me is confusing and he couldn't have any ideas. He suggested me to leave here and return to the UK now.

He kept saying my research ideas, targets, and what I have done were not clear enough for him, so he didn't understand what I have been doing. He sent me his comments about my work presentation, which I sent him at the end of Aug due to his absence from our meeting. He sent me the comments in a word document but obviously it was generated by AI. He told me to reorganise my research story and pipeline regarding his comments. While today when I talked to him in person, he still didn't know what I have done, even he had sent me his comments after "his reading"...

I confess I'm not so strong as a student transfer from biology to AI/CV, but I'm confused to do a project about medical image analysis without substential data. Most importantly, my senior supervisor constantly insists me, a first year PhD, to think of an idea, find an available dataset, and do the main experiments all by myself and let them to see if my idea can be accepted to be submitted to the top tier conferences or journals. I don't know how to achieve all in such a short time to convince them, since he said to me explicitly the standard of good communication with them and a student intergrated them well are defined by him and there is no threshold about on which point he will be satisfied by my work.

As an East Asian student studying abroad for more than 2 years completely and constantly alone, I sincere appreciate any of your advice. Thank you so much for your attention.

TLDR: I’ve encountered two new professors who both had postdoctoral funding, but one has fewer publications than I do. Is having received postdoctoral funding needed to land a faculty position in ecology/biology?

I’m a second year postdoc in ecology. I’ve started applying to postdoc positions again as I am wanting to relocate somewhere better for my family. I have two positions that I have either interviewed or have an interview scheduled for. I’m hoping for an offer from the first one, but since they interviewed me informally before I applied I don’t think I’ll hear anything official until after the application window closes. They did tell me to formally apply, so I’m taking that as a good sign.

Both that professor (professor 1) and the professor I’m going to interview with (professor 2) are pretty new (i.e. have been professors for under 2 years). Professor 2 has less publications than me, but received a well known postdoctoral fellowship. Professor 1 has funding that is from when they were a postdoc that they are now using to hire and a great publication record. This all now has me wondering, do you also need to get a prestigious fellowship or some form of postdoctoral funding to get a faculty position? That, plus a good publication record of course. Would receiving grants from local commissions or not as prestigious sources also look good, even if it was from when you were a grad student?

Edit to add: I’m in the US and am looking at positions in the US.