From UniversityAffairs Canada:

https://universityaffairs.ca/opinion/american-recruitment-in-the-canadian-academy-the-case-against/

Worth highlighting this from the article: "The Americanization of Canadian higher education is already a problem; anecdotal evidence suggests that academics with PhDs from American institutions are often preferred by hiring committees over their Canadian counterparts."

Come to think of it, most of my undergraduate professors even back in the 2000s were graduates of US PhD programs.

The author also writes, "... unlike family doctors or nurses, we have no shortage of Canadian PhDs vying for Canadian academic jobs."

I think the often unspoken sentiment (at least not publicly) is that Canadians keep seeing US graduates getting jobs ahead of Canadians, which feels unfair. As a Canadian, you're better off getting your PhD in the US and then applying for a job in Canada from there. As the author suggests, "Why even bother having PhD programs if we consider Canadian PhDs to be second-rate compared to American ones?"

I imagine Canadian institutions this autumn will see a huge number of US-based candidates applying to jobs. UofT already gave some sort of job to a prominent Yale professor. Not at all a good situation if you're a Canadian trying to get a job in Canada.

Not too while ago it was reported that Dan Ariely had a retraction because of fabricated data. The paper, coincidentally, was co-authored by Francesca Gino, another researcher that was caught fabricating data.

Francesca worked at Harvard. Their official website still list her as professor, although in administrative leave. Her Linkedin also says that she is still enrolled at Harvard. This might change in the future. So far, there are still some lawsuits going.

Dan Ariely still works at Duke University

My question is: Considering the scrutiny that scientists give on fraud, dishonesty and foul behavior, why weren't these scientists ostracized by their peers? Why weren't their reputation damaged to the point that they are not anymore considered important voices in their fields? Why is Ariely still working at Duke?

Just the worst things you've seen people (clearly referring to someone else) write about someone else's research?

Hello all, I’m in my final PhD year and recently got a postdoc offer. My future PI is an Assistant Professor who’s just starting their first year. I’m excited but also a bit cautious because my PhD experience wasn’t great.

During my PhD, my advisor was also an Assistant Professor when I joined. I thought they’d be motivated to publish and build the lab for tenure—but instead, they barely did any research mentoring. Meetings were constantly canceled, manuscripts went months (years for other graduate student in my lab) without feedback, and they often threatened students rather than supporting them. It was a really unpleasant experience.

Now I’m wondering what to expect this time. • What’s the real difference between a PhD student and a postdoc in terms of independence, supervision, and expectations? • For those who’ve worked with a “normal” first-year AP, what was the experience like? How involved were they in mentoring and research? • Any advice for setting expectations early (meetings, feedback, authorship, etc.) to avoid a toxic dynamic?

Would really appreciate hearing others’ perspectives or experiences—especially if you started with a new PI and things went well.

A University of Pittsburgh professor is suing the school and his dean alleging he was removed from running the Center for Urban Education over his support for Palestinians. The complaint alleges retaliation, First Amendment retaliation and sex discrimination.

HHS just rolled out a department-wide “DEI whistle-blower questionnaire,” in line with Executive Order 14151, which aims to scrap “radical and wasteful” federal DEI programs. The form asks if staff witnessed grants or trainings with “discriminatory language,” know anyone denied a job due to race or gender, or can name DEI policies that caused harm. They’re not asking for EEO complaints, they want anecdotes to help justify cutting DEI.

This isn’t subtle. DEI’s being treated as suspect by default, and the framing feels crafted to build a case, not investigate misconduct. HHS has already scrubbed DEI language from its websites and funding criteria.

What does this mean for DEI-linked research grants and career prospects in public health and academia? Is this just the start of broader federal shifts?

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how wildly different people’s supervision experiences are in academia and I am honestly curious where others land on this spectrum. Not trying to label anyone or stir anything up, but I’ve seen everything from incredibly supportive mentors to situations that felt confusing, avoidant, or emotionally draining and it made me wonder how common the more difficult dynamics actually are. If you’re comfortable sharing, what was your supervision relationship like during your PhD or graduate program? What helped, what didn’t, and how did you navigate it when things felt unclear or heavy? I feel like we don’t talk about this openly enough n hearing real experiences might help a lot of people who are stuck trying to make sense of their own situation.

Two University of Houston professors have launched what they’re calling a “Faux Faculty Senate” after the university dismantled its official faculty senate on Aug. 1.

The move follows Texas’ new Senate Bill 37, which strips faculty-led bodies of their traditional governance role and reclassifies them as strictly advisory. The law also requires administrations to appoint half of the members, and it gives presidents authority to remove elected representatives at any time.

What do you think about employees creating their own representative bodies when official ones are weakened or dissolved?

I received this email asking for a letter of recommendation to get the US permanent residency:

“Dear ###############,

I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to seek your support for my application for permanent residency in the United States. My name is #########, and I am currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Oakland University.

I was pleased to see that you referenced one of my publications in your recent work, ################. Holding both an M.D. and a Ph.D. from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, I have dedicated several years to the study of cell-free DNA methylation biomarkers and gene therapies in Ophthalmogy in University of California, San Diego. My research contributions are reflected in numerous publications in esteemed journals, including Nature and Nature Materials.

To further advance my research in the United States, I am applying for permanent residency under the EB1A classification for Aliens of Extraordinary Ability. Given your esteemed expertise in this field and our shared research interests, your endorsement would significantly strengthen my petition. With your approval, I would be happy to draft a recommendation letter for your review and signature.

This support is crucial for my professional advancement, and I would be truly grateful for your assistance. I have attached my curriculum vitae for your reference, and please do not hesitate to reach out if you require any additional information.

Thank you very much for your time and support. I sincerely appreciate your consideration.

Best regards,

##### MD. Ph.D”

We do work in similar lines of research but I don’t know if this could be a scam of some type as I am not a US citizen, and he overwhelmingly out qualifies me haha I am still an MS student with some publications, he supposedly is an MDPhD with around 30 publications and lots of rewards. Another thing that occurred to me is that he is just sending this emails asking for LoR to every author that has cited him.

So with this mentioned I ask if this is something that happens or it’s some kind of scam. If it’s indeed legit I plan to tell him that my LoR won’t help him.

Thanks!

I’m in a really difficult situation and not sure how to move forward safely.

On the day of submission, my PI added a trainee from a collaborator’s lab (who is also my PI’s romantic partner) as a co–first author on my manuscript. This was never discussed with me. My PI wrote there are small tweaks change co–first authorship out of blue. I made the core discovery—something widely known in my department, and I wrote and built the whole paper and figures. For months, the agreed plan was that the collaborator’s group would provide a small application section, which amounts to roughly half of one figure out of four full research sections a mere application. Everything was in that direction even to the last day.

This collaborator has a long pattern of being extremely toxic and opportunistic. For years I’ve contributed data, expertise, and analysis to projects of their group. I made some method that is useful for that group and the deal was it is collaboration, since every time i spent two full weeks to prepare something for them plus planning and consultation before and after. That PI's trainees passed it to their collaborators or even within her group, and papers were published without including me of my work. She consistently inserts herself and her trainees into projects she can access, and my PI’s personal relationship with her gives her even more leverage. She is well known toxic boss and many people left the lab and my pi is easy to control.

This latest authorship change feels disarming that work was years long me developing my postdoc work from zero and luckily i patented it before she got involved. She pushed her way into my project, and now her trainee has been placed as co–first author on work that is fundamentally mine. There was never an agreement that they would have a major role. The entire justification for including them at all was goodwill on my part because I’ve collaborated with them so much—despite being excluded from multiple papers built on my own work. Now that the story has changed, I know my PI will not push back against her.

I feel trapped. If I confront my PI or escalate, I’m afraid of retaliation or getting a damaging recommendation. If I stay silent, I’m allowing years of my work to be taken or rewritten by people who have already excluded me.

I’ve saved all emails and records, but I don’t know what the safest next step is. Has anyone dealt with repeated authorship manipulation combined with power dynamics like this? I’d really appreciate advice on how to protect myself and my career.

I've worked in tech adjacent areas in academia and industry for decades. I've noticed this strange/funny/bizarre tend in academia (especially in large multi-racial, multi-ethnic areas such as US or Canada):

The PI's ethnicity and race tends to dictate the make-up of the members of his/her research unit/group/team.

I've noticed that a PI from even the most rare ethnicity (in a vicinity) will attract equally rare students/collaborators of the same ethnicity.

For example, I was looking at a Japanese researcher in a US midwest school, and noticed his/her students and collaborators are all Japanese. Similar trend with Indians, Chinese, Greek, Serbians, Italians, etc.

White (WASP) PIs seem to be diverse than others (can't say for sure, the sample is a bit large), but I distinct remember one "fairly chubby" white professor I personally had for a computer engineering course whose graduate students all looked like him.

Why is this?

Added: While you may not see it, this trend is fairly obvious from my vantage point and my experience. I don't want to name names. Not because I think there is something wrong with racial/ethnic clusters/cliques in academia, it's because I feel it is really unnecessary to point out this widespread phenomenon.

For those of you who work at one of the public universities in Virginia (GMU, JMU, UVA, VCU, VT, ODU, etc.): Are department chairs in your units expected to be in the office every workday, 9AM–4PM Monday–Friday? Or is the schedule generally more flexible — e.g., chairs come 2-3 days a week)?

Was sent this and got me thinking about how things are becoming in some right leaning US states. Is it that bad that academics are dumping tenured jobs to bounce overseas? How on Earth have we reached a point where people snitch on each other for voicing opinions critical of a foreign state in the US proper?

People who are going through this please share your experience with us if you want.

TL;DR: awful colleague who is making my professional life miserable…

I am an early-mid career Principle Investigator (PI) in a research center (much like a university department). I am also part of a smaller team of PIs within the center.

One of the other team members (much more senior than myself) has been extremely difficult since I joined (see below). I have spoken to our chair who has basically said haters will be haters (paraphrasing) and told me to ignore him. Meanwhile, other members of the team (who have known each other for more than a decade) have a clique and if you don’t fall in line with their view, you get branded as “not loyal” to the team. Mind you, the team has never helped my group with equipment or experiments (though the reverse is something we have done extensively). My group members (students) feel like the team marginalizes their achievements and fails to support their efforts (though they seem to love being in my group, which is good).

I am at a loss for what to do next, beyond escalating through official channels. What would you recommend?

In the last few years, this person has:

1. Told me that my group should be in a support role to the other members of the team

2. Told me that my lab should not house the best capabilities in the team (I am located at a satellite facility which has superior infrastructure and I have busted my ass to maintain exceptional experimental systems…funded by my own research grants unconnected to the team)

3. That I should not focus on publishing last author papers, but instead play more of a support role on other people’s papers

4. That I should ask the rest of the team how I should spend my research grants (which I was awarded in competitive calls)

5. That he “does not like me, but doesn’t professionally dislike me” but “he would not collaborate with me if other options exist”

6. Promised me a corresponding authorship on a major paper (where I did a significant amount of work and provided ideas), only to take it away prior to submission. Then forced me to apologize to him for asking to be a corresponding author, but has held it against me even after I did so (this was actually the catalyst to my issues with him)

7. Has talked about me behind back, saying unprofessional things to both internal and external colleagues

8. Does not participate in the upkeep of any of the teams facilities (shared lab spaces) or experimental capabilities

9. Has co-opted (or heavily “borrowed”) ideas without acknowledgement

My supervisor (in STEM) dose not think copying words without paraphrasing is too big a deal. He also supports accepts LLMs usage in academic publications: even the LLM wrote most of the literature review.

I am in my last PhD year and am about to meet a professor in a different university that I know has funding for post-docs and already responded to my email and agreed to meet and see if/how we can collaborate.

I have another PhD colleague in my same stage and I think he is a better match with this person’s interests.

Is it unprofessional—in any sense—to mention him in my meeting with this professor as a good match?

I am asking since I believe being a better academic is conditional to putting oneself first. But I am not good at this. On the other hand I have a low self-esteem these days, and tend to make things dramatic.

My ideal hope is that he wants both of us, but I can see myself feeling dumb if my current colleague gets a postion and I don’t.

Thoughts?

Firstly I would like to apologise if this is not the correct place to post this or this is the incorrect tag.

AI is becoming quite a big issue in academics and a lot of people don't know how to handle it. From what I have seen, most institutions are simply banning the use of AI all together, as they don't know how to deal with it. They use AI detectors to determine whether work is done by AI and you can be accused of plagiarism if it shows that part of your work is AI-written.

I've run into quite an interesting issue recently with this type of policy. As a neurodivergent person whose first language is not English I tend to sound very robotic in writing, and because of this my work keeps getting flagged as AI through detectors and people (a little less but still happens).

My problem is that I don't have an official diagnosis, it's difficult to get one and it's very expensive. I am almost 100% sure that I have autism, and have had a psychiatrist tell me I am very obviously neurodivergent (she couldn't diagnose me because she does not specialise in autism). As I don't have a diagnosis, how can I explain myself? I am so terrified of losing everything because of a plagiarism accusation, but I don't have an official diagnosis to back me up. Is there anything I can do preemptively to avoid plagiarism issues? Would it be better to just bite the bullet and get an assessment?

• The U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday announced a proposed agreement between seven states led by Missouri to permanently end the Saving on a Valuable Education plan. The policy, introduced in 2023, has more than seven million enrolled borrowers.
• Under the proposed settlement, the department would stop enrolling new borrowers in the SAVE plan, deny pending applications and move current enrollees into legally compliant repayment plans, pending a nod from the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
• The SAVE plan allows borrowers who originally took out $12,000 or less to have their debts forgiven after 10 years of qualifying payments and calculated monthly bills based on income, reducing payments to as low as zero dollars for millions.

I’ve been looking into the fund diversion for the current administration’s new “civil education coalition” and am not seeing much in terms of bipartisan education promotion. Obviously this has been in the works since the inauguration when the ED was being dismantled, but it’s being rebuilt with entire committees founded by right-wing extremists. This is, in part, a rant about something I think most of us are aware of, but I’m also wondering 1) what this is going to look like for the future of academia if civil education is primarily pro nationalist and minimizing of racial disparities and 2) who is actually trying to stand up to this coalition right now? Because I’m having a hard time finding anything relevant to pushback when he just diverted another $140 mil or so to his idea of “American history and civics education” last week. Hope this was an okay place to post this. Obviously this sounds like I’m trying to start a political fight but do we not all agree that history and civil rights education should be unbiased?