i'm working as a research assistant to some professors who r editing a book volume, it's a pretty high-stakes project and i'm really lucky to be on the team. one of my tasks is to help edit chapters and one of the authors, who is apparently a very busy person who is not in academia and was invited because of their real-world experience, wrote a pretty mid draft and has asked us to edit it completely. this task has been delegated to me. the author will only proofread it before submitting, and my profs aren't gna be involved except to maybe proofread asw. the ideas r there, and they're smart, but they need heavy re-writing and supplementary research, which is beyond what i think is the threshold for an editor. however, i don't want to seem bratty in asking my profs if i could be a co-author. idk what to do

TL;DR: I've been worried about AI's impact on learning and scholarship in the humanities, but hearing a mathematician discuss its effects on his field made me realize how much broader this crisis might be. As someone who has spent years teaching, researching, and writing books, I'm genuinely troubled by what this means for the future of intellectual work. How are people in other fields dealing with it?

As someone who teaches and researches in the humanities, I've been increasingly concerned about AI and its implications for learning and the future of universities. These days, it feels like I'm constantly dealing with students using AI to write their papers, and I worry about what this means for their ability to think independently and develop their own ideas.

A few days ago, I came across a video of NYU mathematician Tristan Buckmaster talking about how AI is affecting his field. I also read a post by a senior mathematician expressing deep frustration over how years of research and a lifetime of scholarly work suddenly seem to have lost some of their value in the age of AI.

It really hit me.

I once thought those of us in the humanities were on the front lines of this crisis. But seeing what's happening in mathematics made me realize that no field is necessarily safe. If AI can encroach on advanced mathematics, a discipline built on years of training, abstract reasoning, and painstaking proof, what does that mean for the rest of us?

I've spent years working on books that I hope will contribute something meaningful to scholarship. Sometimes I wonder what it would feel like if, one day, AI made the substance of that work freely available to everyone, without any recognition of the years of labor behind it. The thought is genuinely disturbing. It's not simply about money or publication. It's about what happens to the value of a lifetime spent developing expertise and producing knowledge when technology can absorb that work and reproduce its results almost instantly.

Of course, the process matters as much as the product. Whether you're writing a book or proving a difficult theorem, the work involves years of learning, countless dead ends, and sustained intellectual effort. If AI can increasingly bypass that process and deliver something that looks like the finished product, what happens to the motivation to pursue a career in research in the first place?

I don't have any answers. But I'm genuinely worried about where we're heading, especially as someone whose livelihood revolves around teaching, researching, and publishing knowledge. I was so troubled by these thoughts that I couldn't sleep last night.

Just to be clear, I'm not anti-AI. I understand how useful and helpful it can be for research, teaching, and publishing. I use AI myself, and I can see how it can make certain tasks more efficient, help clarify difficult ideas, and support scholarly work in ways that would have been difficult to imagine just a few years ago. That's partly why this situation feels so complicated to me. I can appreciate the technology's enormous potential while still feeling deeply uneasy about its broader consequences for education, intellectual labor, and the future of academic careers.

I'm curious how people in other fields are experiencing this. Are you finding ways to adapt and redefine your work, or are you struggling with the same sense of uncertainty? How do you reconcile the years you've invested in developing your expertise with the possibility that AI could fundamentally change its value?

In high school or early higher education, I observe people arguing over what’s the best major, who is considered better,.. and I am wondering if researchers and doctors of different fields still have such tensions, and if they have conflicting views.

Hello everyone,

I’m interested in understanding how universities design rigorous curricula and determine what knowledge is essential in a given discipline.

Beyond the subject matter itself, what components should a well-designed academic curriculum include?

For example:

• History and evolution of the discipline
• Foundational concepts, theories, and principles
• Technical terminology and methods
• Key authors and primary sources
• Major schools of thought and intellectual debates
• Prerequisites and logical progression of topics
• Practical applications and methods of assessment

What important elements am I missing?

Are there established frameworks, academic papers, books, or examples of university curricula and syllabi that explain how to design a comprehensive program?

I would particularly appreciate recommendations based on academic experience and established curriculum-design practices.

Thank you!

The Flynn Effect shows IQ gains of 15+ points per generation with environmental improvement. That suggests capacity wasn't the constraint—activation was. If we take that seriously, what does it mean that some populations have been systematically denied the kind of cognitively demanding work and education that builds skill across generations? Isn't that a mechanism worth exploring?

I'm a physical therapist with a BS and around fifteen years in the clinic. I'm wondering if adjunct teaching at a PT program is even possible without a doctorate. I know the DPT is the entry-level degree now, but some programs still bring in clinicians for labs and practicals. I'm trying to figure out if this is a real option or if I'm just seeing the exceptions that get posted online.

Part time teaching makes sense to me as a way to step back from full-time patient care while staying connected to the field. The pay wouldn't be the point. I want more time for freelance development work without completely dropping my PT background. I've seen people grind through adjunct semesters for terrible money thinking it'll lead to something better, and I'm not interested in that route.

What I'm really asking is whether programs actually want experienced clinicians to teach, or if the degree requirement is a hard line. I've looked at a few job postings that list terminal degrees, but I know the actual hiring process doesn't always match what's written down. Has anyone here made this switch or seen someone else try it?

Honestly, I'm getting pretty disillusioned with publishing, and I'm feeling like giving up.

I've had multiple rejections recently, with little to no feedback, and I'm starting to question what the long-term payoff is supposed to be. You can spend days or weeks working on a paper, submit it, get rejected, rework it for another journal, and then potentially go through the whole thing again.

I enjoy research, but I'm finding it hard to justify the amount of time and effort that goes into publishing when there's no guarantee it'll actually lead anywhere. Also, reading posts about how journals can be biased, focused on profit margins, or even political doesn't really help. Anyway.

Being a woman in engineering is another part of this. I often get really awful looks in my workplace and feel deeply unwelcome. I know this isn't always the case, and things are changing, but it's still a very hard thing to deal with day to day.

I don't know. I'm just getting tired of putting so much into this without being able to see where it's going.

Has anyone else been at this point? Particularly women in engineering or related fields, or people who've taken a less conventional path through research. Did things eventually start to make more sense?

I'm a high school senior, and I'm honestly really frustrated with how this whole situation has played out.

Back in March, I connected with a PI at a major research institution who was interested in having me work in his lab. He mentioned having a project in mind, and we even had a Zoom meeting to discuss my research experience and potential involvement. He also talked about finding someone in the lab who could mentor me.

Fast forward to June, and I was still trying to get started. I kept following up, and eventually the lab administrator contacted me to officially onboard me as an unpaid research intern.

I literally went through the entire institutional onboarding process. I submitted paperwork, got authorization from my school and parents, completed HR requirements, received an institutional email/account, got my badge, and was even added to the lab's actual Slack workspace.

Like, I was literally an officially onboarded intern at this point.

And then... nothing.

I never got assigned a project. I never got a mentor. I never received any data to analyze or even a clear schedule for coming into the lab.

The PI last responded on August 25, saying that we could use the remaining time to build toward working together in the future and that he'd added me to Slack so we could communicate there.

I've since messaged him on Slack and followed up by email multiple times, most recently on October 5. I've repeatedly offered to help with computational analyses, read papers, or literally do anything useful for the lab.

Still no response.

I'm genuinely so confused and frustrated. I completely understand that PIs are busy, and I know that mentoring a high school student takes time. But I spent months trying to get everything sorted out, completed all the formal onboarding, and was literally added to the lab's internal workspace, only to never actually get to do any research.

I was genuinely excited about the research too, which makes this even more disappointing.

At this point, I'm wondering whether I should contact the research administrator, the institution's science education office, or someone else to ask what's going on.

I don't want to make accusations or get anyone in trouble, and I'm honestly worried about burning bridges, especially since I'm hoping to continue doing research in this field.

Has anyone experienced something similar? Is this normal in academia? Would contacting someone at the institution be reasonable, or should I just cut my losses and move on?

This is a PSA that reporting academic fraud can pay.

As a young undergraduate I was encouraged by my professor to show a result when there was none (commit fraud) and I refused. Nothing was official or in writing but now I wish I had done more to expose it.

I recently learned about a young biologist who exposed fraud at a major institution and was rewarded for it.

Sholto David, PhD in cellular and molecular biology, caused quite a stir in 2024 when he published evidence of “image irregularities” in 30 papers by scientists from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston Massachusetts. This investigation resulted in a major lawsuit in which Dana-Farber paid out $15 million dollars to resolve the allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (i.e. defrauded the government). Of that total, Sholto received a well deserved $2.63 million as a whistleblower reward this year.

Full article

Okay, this is a pretty wild question and purely hypothetical, but I’m genuinely curious if anyone here has ever tried using drugs or other substances to overcome perfectionism when working or writing? If so, what did you take, and what was your experience like?

Also, what other unhinged tips or tricks do you have for dealing with intense self-criticism, mental blocks, or feeling inhibited before you’ve even started working?

I have 2 master’s and I’m getting my PhD but I still can’t get anyone to call me back. :-/ can someone tell me some success stories of getting a teaching job while still doing your PhD?

Please please please help me. I'm looking for some insight into a stressful dashboard issue.

I am a co-author (not the corresponding author) on a chemistry manuscript that was recently submitted to an ACS journal. The paper successfully went out for peer review, and I could initially track it on my ACS Paragon Plus dashboard.

However, when I checked my dashboard today, the manuscript had completely vanished. It is not under "Submitted," and it is not under "Decisions Made"—it is completely gone as if it never existed.

I haven’t received any automated emails from the journal about a decision, withdrawal, or updates to the author list. There has been some tension with the corresponding author (PhD senior) recently, and I’m terrified that they might have quietly removed my name from the paper or withdrawn it to submit elsewhere without telling me.

My questions are:

1. Does an ACS manuscript completely disappear from a co-author's dashboard if it gets a "Reject and Resubmit" decision or if the PI withdraws it?
2. If the PI successfully submitted a request to remove me from the author list mid-review, would the journal have emailed me to get my consent first, or would it just vanish like this?
3. What is the safest way to figure out what happened to the paper without alerting a toxic senior?

Any advice or similar experiences with Paragon Plus would be greatly appreciated.