Hi all!

I’m 17 years into my professional career and seriously considering a PhD, and I’d love input from people who’ve made a similar jump or who sit on admissions committees.

Background: CPA. 14 years at a Big 4 firm in audit (including time as a national instructor running firm-wide training), and now a partner at a boutique advisory firm. BBA in Accounting and MSA from a top US program. If it matters from an admissions perspective, I'm female and Hispanic.

Research: I go back and forth on the research aspect of working in academia. At times, I get excited about emerging topics - like how AI adoption will change how public companies report, how management makes disclosure decisions, and how audit firms change their approach in this rapidly shifting landscape. I don't know from a discipline perspective if my interests sit somewhere between accounting, organizational behavior, and maybe management or strategy - and what does that mean for the program I would apply to. I love to write. I was good at math, once upon a time when it mattered, and I do enjoy math.

Teaching: I know I want to teach. This is the aspect of the academia career that I am most excited about - teaching and mentoring students, and bringing my real-world experience into the classroom. I also have young kids and want a more balanced life than consulting allows, while still earning a decent salary (hence wanting to pursue PhD vs. being an adjunct professor).

My questions:

1. Field fit: Would I be better served by an accounting PhD (behavioral/judgment and decision-making track) given my background, an OB/management PhD, or something else? Does a CPA and practice experience matter much outside accounting departments?
2. Leaving industry: How have others with 10+ years in industry managed the transition to a PhD program. I know it's a lot of work, but I've lived a life of all-nighters and client deadlines and insane pressure, so it is the same as that or worse or different?
3. Age and timing: I’d finish in my late 40s. Is that a disadvantage on the job market?
4. Balance: People who’ve done the PhD with young kids, how did you make it work? And is tenure-track actually more balanced than partner life, or just a different intensity?
5. Compensation: Any realistic sense of salaries for accounting vs. management faculty at R1s vs. teaching-focused schools? What should I be ready for in terms of compensation?

I’m looking for honest perspectives on whether this path gets me to teaching, interesting work, reasonable pay, and more time with my family. Thanks in advance.

Hi All,

I just received an impact score of 18 on my NINDS K99. My understanding is that this is pretty certain to get funded, barring some catastrophe at the NIH (which is of course possible). I am also applying for faculty positions this cycle and have already submitted many applications. I'm wondering if it would be weird/awkward/frowned upon if I emailed the schools I've already applied to informing them of the score, despite not having any confirmation that it will be funded. Appreciate any advice/insights!

While waiting to land a job after finishing your PhD, what are you doing to pay the bills? Are you doing temporary work, freelancing, working part-time, relying on savings, or getting financial support from family?

I’m curious about how people manage this transition, especially when the job search takes months or longer.

Hello chat! First post here.

I (will) have a master's in Physics, but I am thinking of switching to Science Education. Why? Because I like science communication, education and working behind the scenes to improve the education system, particularly in the natural sciences. I've done a few courses and projects here and there in SciComm and also worked as a "science facilitator" a few times to see if research different from physics is something I can do. I like teaching but not as much as working on the system itself.

In the European context, does anyone have any tips or suggestions to land a PhD in Science Education or even Physics Education? I've already found a few universities online, so this post is just to know more about SciEd and maybe get information I've missed.

Other relevant stuff:

Non-EU but home country not great to stay in.

Financially, I cannot do another master's.

My master's degree was broadly environmental studies and natural resources management. I did gain research experience, but it's in a different topic than what I want my PhD to be on. The research I did was related to plastic pollution, and I want to write my PhD on human/wildlife conflict. Is this a huge problem? I do have one published paper.

hi, im a researcher at a university in England on a fixed-term contract, and honestly, im struggling with my supervisor’s behaviour. ive worked here for around two years and never imagined id experience something like this in academia.

she repeatedly asks about my sexuality and makes homophobic comments. once she said that people of the same gender shouldn’t marry because their children would be mentally ill. she’s also said her religion is better than others and made comments about preferring “white boys”. she knows i have ADHD and frequently makes remarks about it.

she regularly shares colleagues’ medical histories, personal information and private relationships with me. ive also been told she’s shared information about my health with others. she makes negative statements about colleagues that i believe are untrue, sometimes creating tension between people, and then denies conversations when confronted.

the workload is honestly ridiculous. im sometimes expected to manage three papers simultaneously, completing analysis, writing and submission within two or three weeks, sometimes an entire paper within one week. ive worked until 2 or 3am trying to meet deadlines. when i struggle, she questions my competence, makes me feel inferior and brings up whether she’ll extend my contract.

authorship is another major concern. ive written protocols, screened thousands of papers, extracted data, conducted analyses and drafted manuscripts, yet ive been removed from papers or had my first authorship given to someone else. when i question it, im told my contributions aren’t enough, despite spending months working on these projects.

professional boundaries are another issue. my supervisor is married with a family but has told me about an affair with a former colleague. she regularly cries about their relationship, discusses intimate details with me and another colleague, and shares his private information. im uncomfortable being expected to provide emotional support to someone who controls my employment. even during work trips, she frequently discusses colleagues’ private lives.

im also concerned about research funding. she travels abroad frequently, sometimes combining work trips with personal leisure, while we’re told there’s insufficient funding for staffing. i believe the colleague she described having an affair with also accompanied her on grant-funded trips.

all of this is affecting my mental health. im considering leaving but worried about losing authorship and recognition for months of research. ive also heard that two former colleagues experienced similar treatment before leaving.

i genuinely love research, but im exhausted and feel completely powerless. i don’t know how much longer i can keep working like this.

tl;dr: im an early career researcher dealing with a supervisor who repeatedly makes inappropriate comments about sexuality, religion and ADHD, shares colleagues’ private medical and personal information, imposes unrealistic workloads and threatens my contract renewal. ive also experienced unfair authorship decisions, inappropriate professional boundaries involving her personal affair and concerns about research funding. it’s seriously affecting my mental health and career, and im genuinely unsure how to handle this without risking everything ive worked for.

Two pieces on this worth reading: Times Higher Education and Retraction Watch.

For anyone outside environmental science: Science of the Total Environment used to be a genuinely good journal. It was a go-to place to publish, and it sat in the top 15 globally on some volume and quality measures. Now it’s been delisted from Web of Science, has its IF removed.

STOTEN has, in response, retracted 165 papers this year, and has gone from publishing over 10,000 articles in 2024 to fewer than 1,000 so far this year.

Most of the retractions were for two things. The first was handling editors with ongoing or extensive collaborations with the authors whose papers they were handling; Retraction Watch counts at least 50 of those. The second was authorship changes nobody could explain. In one paper, 22 of the 26 authors were added at revision. Others involved citations dumped in at proof stage, plagiarism, and tortured phrases.

Many of these retractions traces back to Professor Huu Hao Ngo, the then STOTEN editor, and his former PhD student and wife Professor Wenshan, as well as Prof Qilin Wang. All whom have been removed as editors.

According to THE:

• He edited 30 of the retracted papers, mostly pulled because of his frequent collaborations with nearly 20 of the co-authors, and some for unexplained authorship changes. In one, 10 of 16 authors were added at revision.
• Two papers he co-authored were retracted because of his ongoing collaboration with Damià Barceló, the editor who handled them.
• Barceló also sits on the advisory board of a non-profit Ngo founded in 2022. Ngo didn’t declare that relationship in the competing interest statements. It is widely speculated that the non-profit was used to 'buy in' to the paper mill practices, expediting peer review.
• Another paper, not yet retracted, lists Ngo as both editor and author.

An important detail is at the time of these articles (being submitted/published) STOTEN actually allowed the (submitting) author to select (yes select) the editor of their choice. The idea was of course to pick an editor in your field. However, as you can guess, this system was abused by many to select the editor they know. This is a rather peculiar detail that is not mentioned and that potentially cast a shadow on the idea that the authors ‘didn’t know who the editor’ was or had no saying in the choice of the editor. Most of the papers re lit reviews, as well, so

But Elsevier’s editor guidance already says you can’t handle papers written by colleagues. Its reviewer guidance treats co-authorship in the last three years as a conflict. And you don’t need a policy document to know you shouldn’t edit your own paper, or that 22 new authors appearing at revision is a red flag. Several of the editors have now quietly disappeared from the journal’s website, and that seems to be about the extent of the consequences.

My question is: where misconduct is actually established, what’s proportionate? Removal from editorial boards seems like the bare minimum. Should people lose their positions? How many retractions = getting fired? Should they hand back grants, awards and promotions that were built on inflated metrics? Or does nothing formal ever happen, and people just slowly become pariahs in their field?

What about co-authors who say they were “only on the paper”? If your name is on it, isn’t it your responsibility?

And universities earn a lot, in money and in rankings, from their most prolific researchers. Can they realistically be trusted to investigate?

Hello, hope you guys are doing well. I am about to complete masters in computer science. I am a non-EU, living in Germany. Some of my seniors got PhD, and they seem to be really unsatisfied. My opinion is that they are living comfortably, getting married, and enjoying life. However, I feel like PhD, is like short term gain and long term pain. After PhD it might be difficult to find a decent job, I met someone, who completed his postdoc, but couldn't find anything. Things like this scares me a lot from pressing a PhD.

So on the other hand is a job in IT, initially it will be very difficult to adjust in the environment and everything, and later on things might get comfortable, I will be adjusted, and as long as I keep myself updated with the modern technologies, it will be okay

I want your opinion, on pros and cons of a PhD. Or any career related advice is welcomed. Thanks in advance

Hi everyone!

I recently graduated from university and am currently interviewing for a research assistant position at a lab in Toronto.

During the interview, the PI asked whether there might be alternative ways to fund my position so that the full salary wouldn't have to come out of the lab's grant funding. I wanted to explore whether there are external funding opportunities I could apply for to help support the position.

Since I'm no longer a student, I'm particularly interested in funding available to recent graduates who are employed in academic research, rather than scholarships that require current enrolment in a degree program.

Are there any grants, fellowships, or funding programs in Canada or Ontario that could help cover an RA's salary? I'm also curious about opportunities for women in STEM, early-career researchers, or recent graduates.

I'm open to funding that I could apply for myself, as well as programs that the PI or institution would apply for to help fund the position.

If anyone has experience with this or knows of programs worth looking into, I'd really appreciate your advice. Thank you!

Hi,

I'm a first-year master's student in bioengineering (cell biology, biochemistry, bioprocesses) in France, and I'm expected to complete a 5-month internship this year. I can do it either in academia or in a private company. However, since private sector internships are harder to find, I guess I'll end up doing it in academia like many of my classmates.

I talked to students from the previous cohort, and I gathered that many of those who went into academia in Europe had a slow-paced internship with a low workload. I'm concerned about this, as I want to learn as much as possible to stand out in a difficult job market.

That being said, here are my questions:

• Should I avoid the EU if I want to gain the most relevant experience possible in academia? Since rent in the US and Ireland is particularly high, I thought options like Vietnam, India, or Indonesia might be good alternatives, but I'm not sure if the workload/work ethic there is higher than in Europe.
• Which is better for an intern: focusing on mastering new techniques (e.g., performing flow cytometry without necessarily understanding why the experiment is important) or learning to design experiments (e.g., planning proper positive/negative controls, recording data, reviewing protocols, and troubleshooting)? Keep in mind that I want to work in industry after graduation.
• Are academic internships valued as much by recruiters as those in private companies, or would doing an internship in industry give me a real advantage? (Sorry if this question doesn't belong in this sub)

Any feedback or opinions are welcome!

(I used AI to correct my syntax)

Edit : Thanks to all the participants in this conversation

I have a background in psychology and a master’s in organizational psychology. My research interests include workplace discrimination and DEI in the workplace.

I am considering PhDs in both organizational psychology and management and organization. The potential supervisors whose research aligns most closely with my interests seem to be in management and organization, but I am wondering how moving into this field would shape my training and future academic career.

How much should the program’s disciplinary label matter compared with supervisor fit? How would choosing one over the other affect my academic career options?

Thanks in advance!

I’m a final-year economics major double majoring in mathematics. I’ve enjoyed math more than economics throughout undergrad, but I thought graduate economics would feel more like mathematics and be something I could enjoy pursuing academically.

I’m now taking graduate microeconomics and macroeconomics, and honestly, I find them boring too. This has made me question my plan of pursuing an economics PhD.

I’m considering a mathematics master’s, but I’m unsure what to do. Has anyone faced a similar choice? Would a math master’s keep an economics PhD open?

Also, what is economics PhD research actually like compared with graduate coursework? Is there more freedom to pursue mathematical questions, and could someone who finds the courses boring still enjoy the research?

To the Leadership and Trustees of Educational Policy,

I am writing to you from a position of unyielding conviction regarding the structural architecture of human cognition: Time creates space, and space changes outcomes.

Across North America, our educational institutions have drifted toward frictionless screens and keyboard-based acceleration. In doing so, they have inadvertently dismantled the tactile anchors vital to human development. Handwriting and journaling are not nostalgic pastimes; they are the fundamental biological and neurological technologies required for fine motor mastery, sensory integration, and complex neural connectivity. A flat glass screen cannot replicate what ink pulling across paper achieves within the developing brain.

I know this not merely through abstract theory, but through decades of rigorous, firsthand observation and application. The evidence is absolute: handwriting anchors memory, sharpens critical thought, and anchors neurological regulation. On paper, the human nervous system—its stress, its emotional cadence, and its internal storms—is made visible. Paper captures the internal state and freezes it, providing the young mind with the rare capacity to step back and observe its own operations from an objective vantage point.

When modern curricula bypass handwriting in favor of total screen reliance, they compress cognitive and emotional space. They remove the vital physical friction that forces the brain to pause, process, and integrate information. People make decisions, not systems; yet students cannot learn self-regulation, deep comprehension, or the capacity to navigate pressure if they are denied the physical pause that the written word provides.

The restoration of handwriting and journaling to its foundational place in Canadian and American schools is no longer an optional pedagogical preference—it is an urgent imperative for intellectual sovereignty. We must equip the next generation with the internal tools to govern their own attention, master their sensory pathways, and reclaim authority over their cognitive development.

I invite forward-thinking leaders and policy architects across North America to examine the proof, the framework, and the vision for returning these vital disciplines to our classrooms. I welcome the opportunity to discuss how we can implement this critical shift at the highest levels.

Sincerely,

Lisa Marie Berkers

Expert by experience

Whitemouth, Manitoba, Canada

My dream is be an academic in African American studies/ humanities. I love history as well so I could teach history. Even better, African American history.

Im super poor so I can’t just fuck off this opportunity for an education, so I gotta be realistic with my expectations I assume.

What do I do? My plan rn is nursing but imma be honest: im not passionate abt living my life in scrubs and bodily fluids. Im not a medical person.

I want to learn and publish dissertations and publish books and be an academic. I’ve already published poems and wrote a book. YALL ITS MY BIGGEST DREAM. I also wouldn’t mind being in a museum for a while after college if I can’t find a job. Idk

I ALSO REALLLYY WANNA GET MY PHD!!!!

I want my work uniform to involve heels and a briefcase instead of nursing caps to sum up my dream. im willing to go to school for however long to achieve this dream.

I could be a professor, but I heard that it’s kinda hard to be a professor on AA studies rn bc of politics and it could be easy to be out of a job. I could be a dual credit teacher too bc they get paid well and I could see myself doing that happily.

Ughhh but I also want to travel and perhaps live abroad in Scotland for 2 years at some point. Idk.

I need some opinion and input. What are y’all’s thoughts?

I have a masters degree in political science. Average GPA of 3.3 in Bachelor and Masters level. Zero journal article but 10+ oped article in national/international dailies. My plus point has been the Masters dissertation about media studies, which I am converting as writing sample. I have two years of research experience in policy think tank and decent test scores.While I am currently freelancing on media research. I am hopeful that political science background will broaden interdisciplinary scope.

I feel still uncertain whether my profile will land PhD in communication. Is there anything I can pursue to significantly increase my chances of acceptance? What I mustn't miss on SOP?Feedbacks will be appreciated.

PS!: I am applying to middle rank universities and state universities mostly.

I successfully defended my thesis in January 2026 (field: law; location: Italy). In the last months I won two small grants and I will soon be unemployed again.

My supervisor is pushing me to start writing my first book (on a theme completely unrelated to the one of the said thesis) and I’m working my ass off to try to find a proper book proposal, but it takes time and effort.

At the same time I’m trying to “exploit” my thesis research as much as I can before it isn’t up to date anymore by writing articles on the topic.

Sometimes I feel very “behind” and “irrelevant” compared to my colleagues, even though I’m still very young for accademia.

Because of the low/inexistent wages I still don’t have my own place and my own car at almost 30. My parents support me, but we are strapped together until I find my own financial stability. I know that deep down they don’t trust academia as a “safe” environment and would prefer if I became a civil officer.

Is this all worth it? How do you know that eventually you will stop fighting for survival, academically and personally?

Hello! I am a junior undergraduate student and I am starting to think about applying for Comparative Literature PhD programs next year. I am interested in studying a relatively niche field (Guatemalan and Mayan literature/poetry) and so far I'm having a hard time finding faculty at top programs within this research area. My tentative plan is to study how Spanish and indigenous languages interact with each other through texts, largely through a deconstructionist and postcolonial lens. So far I think UC Irvine would be best suited to my interests, but if anyone has experience in this field or knows of other institutions that might be a good fit, please offer your suggestions!

So for context I have never spoken directly to this professor, so I wanted to just email.. um yeah. She does not take late work, and the assignment is locked now. The paper was due today at 3pm, I thought it was due tomorrow at 3pm. Now i just did it for nothing. what can I even say? im stupid.

I'm a third year PhD student in chemistry, and I'm currently in a somewhat frustrating authorship situation. I'd appreciate some outside perspectives, particularly from PIs or people who have experienced something similar.

About 1.5 years ago, I agreed to shared first authorship with a more senior PhD student. At that point, we were working on different parts of the same project, and I had independently developed approximately half of the chemistry intended for the publication. The agreement was that the senior student would be listed first and would write the manuscript.

Unfortunately, the manuscript wasn't completed by that student, and my PI eventually transferred responsibility for the paper to me at the start of this year.

Initially, the plan was for me to use the existing experimental results and finish writing the manuscript. However, when I examined the previous student's data, I found numerous issues that made me uncomfortable relying on them for publication. And it later also turned out that their key results were actually wrong due to them not taking proper care in evaluating their data. I discussed this with my PI, who explained that he wasn't sufficiently familiar with the primary data to assess my concerns directly but had no objection to me repeating experiments and improving the chemistry.

What I initially expected to be a relatively straightforward task has now turned into approximately ten months of additional experimental work. I've had to repeat, substantially modify, or replace most of the previous student's chemistry. At this point, I don't expect any of their original experimental data to appear in the final manuscript.

What makes this particularly frustrating is that I had already independently developed an alternative synthetic approach that performs considerably better. However, the decision was made to retain the original route for the first publication by my PI, which is why I spent so much time redeveloping it.

I'm now responsible for writing the manuscript, in addition to having developed the other major part of the paper and substantially reworked the chemistry originally assigned to the senior student.

My question is whether the original shared first authorship agreement should still stand given how substantially the contributions have changed.

My PI has previously said that he doesn't want to revisit authorship until the manuscript is finished, so I don't actually know his current position. However, I'm trying to decide whether I should request sole first authorship if he proposes retaining the original arrangement.

My name would now definitely appear first in the author list, even if first authorship remains shared.

I'm particularly interested in two questions:

1. How significant is the distinction between sole first authorship and being the first-listed author with an equal-contribution designation, particularly for future postdoctoral applications?

2. Is it reasonable to request sole first authorship when another researcher made earlier efforts, but most of their experimental work had to be replaced for it to be publishable?

I'm in the third year of my PhD, and I'm concerned that the final authorship arrangement may not accurately reflect the scientific contributions that went into producing the publication.

I'd appreciate perspectives on how others would approach this discussion with their PI. I do not want to burn bridges but also not further harm my career than this project already did.

I’m in the process of applying a dissertation fellowship in Humanities.

I’m wondering among Proposal, Personal Statement, Timeline, and Writing Sample, and Bibliography, which one is most important? I know proposal of course comes first, how about personal statement and writing sample?

Any tips to be more competitive?

I need to write a research proposal for a masters application but I feel like all the questions I have are already investigated. Can someone give me advise?

I'm currently in my first year of mtech(cse) i want to write a research paper and also need to make project on it . It should be related to Reinforcement learning.

I've never done anything related to research paper so i really need help.

Please help me if u can.

I was recently invited for a one-way online interview for a faculty position. From what I understand I will have to record answers to several questions on a specific online platform. Questions will be shown one by one. I will have a couple minutes to think of an answer and subsequently record it.

This sounds rather awful as it removes the entire human experience, the ability to read body language, the opportunity for follow up questions, or to just have a discussion like normal human beings. I guess it also makes the online interview stage more reproducible, reduces bias, and makes it faster and cheaper.

How do people go and prepare for something like this beyond predicting which questions they are going to be asked and coming up with comprehensive answers to each of these?

Hello, this is my first time ever presenting a research paper at a conference, and my research is in the data science field.

What are your tips for presenting effectively and structuring my talk?

Also, I am quite nervous about the Q&A session. For those in data science or similar fields, what types of questions are reviewers and attendees most likely to ask?

I reached out to a professor advertising a studentship. I made it very clear that I was intrested in his lab for years and it was evidenced by my research work whcih referenced a lot of his work.

That was 3 weeks ago he actually replied

He said this;

Dear (my name),

Thank you for reaching out and your kind words about our lab. It is very impressive to hear about your background and your capstone project on (my project)

I strongly encourage you to apply \[narrator note: I applied a week ago\] given your interests, I also wanted to mention that there may be prospects for a project on (project)

I look forward to seeing your application.

I was gonna reply with;

Thank you for your encouraging reply. A project on (project) would be an ideal direction for what I hope to work on during PhD, and I appreciate you letting me know about it.
I have already submitted my application for your lab and I hope to have a discussion to discuss the project further with you.

Now what I want to ask:

1. Should I be more assertive in the email and request a meeting to discuss his work
   
2. This is a studentship; so he has sole authority over choosing who is admitted and he only has 1 PhD position open so I want to be tactical about how I reply
   
3. He did not have to mention that new project he’s working on that might be a potential project for my PhD if he was not genuinely considering me as an applicant because it aligns perfectly with what I hope to do as well as my personal background.

Please any help would be appreciated. I don’t want to fumble this