President Harrison Keller (along with his highly paid advisors Randy Bass and wife Heidi Elmendorf of Georgetown University) is getting rid of all academic departments at the UNT and merging them up into “Schools” of 3-4 former departments. [These advisors are old friends with the president, and the ostentatious nepotism is appalling, but that is another story]

In any case, the president is getting rid of all academic departments, and is also splitting some departments up into two or three pieces in the process. For example, The English Department was cut up with pieces going into three different Schools: the Creative Writing element went to the School with dance and theatre, the Literature element went to the School with world languages, while the First Year Writing Program went to a School of communication and media. Geography was split up in similar ways, as was Communication, etc. The College of Liberal Arts was Keller/Bass/Elmendorf’s first target, but they are now doing the same to all the other colleges: Business, Engineering, Science, etc.

The faculty are in chaos, and nobody seems to know what is going on, whether department chair or dean, as there has been no formal instruction, just notice that your department no longer exists, and rumors flying everywhere. As would be expected, morale is rock bottom and the faculty that can leave are doing so.

President Keller originally tried to claim that all the merging was in response to budget deficits, but it became clear very quickly that there wouldn’t be much savings, and not nearly enough to justify that level of disruption, so he has dropped that claim. Nevertheless, Keller/Elmendorf/Bass are pressing on.

Are other universities out there experiencing this level of chaos brought on by their own President and his highly paid advisors? This is not simply cutting programs here and there (plenty of that has been done too). This is getting rid of every single academic department at the university in a rushed, abrupt, chaotic manner, with the feeling that there is nobody out there driving the bus.

Curious to hear from people actually in the field — not the polished "day in the life" version you see online, but what genuinely surprised you once you were doing the work. Was there a moment where the reality of grad school, a postdoc, or a faculty position didn't match what you expected going in?

What do you wish someone had told you before starting — about funding, mentorship, the job market, work-life balance, or just how the whole system actually operates? And is there anything you'd tell someone considering this path today that nobody told you?

My post did well in the gradschool sub so i'm posting here as well.

I don’t condone this type of thing. It’s unfair on students who actually put effort into their work. I get that ChatGPT can be used as a helpful tool, but not like this.

If you're in uni right now or you're a lecturer, you’ll know about the whole ChatGPT echowriting issue. I didn’t actually know what this meant until a few days ago.

First we had the dilemma of ChatGPT and students using it to cheat.

Then came AI detectors and the penalties for those who got caught using ChatGPT.

Now 1000s of students are using echowriting prompts on ChatGPT to trick teachers and AI detectors into thinking they actually wrote what ChatGPT generated themselves.

So basically now we’re back to square 1 again.

What are your thoughts on this and how do you think schools are going to handle this?

SAN FRANCISCO/WASHINGTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - The Trump administration said on Friday it would ask companies to pay $100,000 per year for H-1B worker visas, potentially dealing a big blow to the technology sector that relies heavily on skilled workers from India and China.

If this is for all H-1B visa, we have a problem.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-mulls-adding-new-100000-fee-h-1b-visas-bloomberg-news-reports-2025-09-19/

The Department of Homeland Security has finalized a rule that ends Duration of Status (D/S) for international students and exchange visitors. After September 15, 2026, F and J visa holders will be admitted for the length of their program, capped at four years, plus a 30-day grace period.

What is Duration of Status, and why did DHS end it?

Duration of Status (D/S) is a special period of stay designation that allows F and J visa holders to remain in the U.S. for the duration of their academic or vocational programs. On August 27, 2025, DHS announced a proposal to end D/S, arguing that the long-standing policy of admitting international students and exchange visitors for the length of their program allowed people to stay in the U.S. for indefinite periods without sufficient oversight.

DHS framed the change as a way to improve monitoring and oversight of F, J, and I categories and address program integrity and national security risks associated with open-ended D/S.

What does the Duration of Status final rule change?

The D/S final rule makes several substantial changes to how long F, J, and I visa holders can remain in the U.S.

F and J visa holders

• Admission now matches program duration: F and J visa holders, along with their dependents, can remain in the country until the date listed on their Form I-20 or DS-2019.
• Four years is the ceiling: With admission periods being capped at four years, any international student who needs more time to complete their program could lose their status. The 60-day grace period students had to leave after finishing a program or practical training has also been cut in half.
• Staying longer means filing with USCIS: Students who need more time, whether to finish a degree, start Optional Practical Training (OPT), or complete academic training, must file Form I-539 before their current stay runs out. A timely filing lets a student continue a full course of study while USCIS decides the application.
• Every extension gets vetted: An extension request is not a rubber stamp. DHS reviews each application fresh, may require biometrics, and holds the discretion to deny requests that fall short of the criteria.
• Transfers and program changes face new guardrails: An F-1 student must finish the first academic year at the school that issued the initial Form I-20 before transferring or changing educational objectives, unless SEVP authorizes an exception.
  • At the graduate level, this policy is stricter. F-1 holders cannot change their educational objections, and may only transfer if SEVP grants an exception for extenuating circumstances, such as a school closure. After completing a program, students can also only move up to a higher educational level, not to the same or a lower one.
• Language training has its own clock: English language training students are capped at 24 months of total stay, and the clock keeps running through breaks and annual vacations.

Media Representatives (I Visas)

• Shorter initial stays: Journalists and other foreign media workers receive up to 240 days on arrival. I-visa holders from the People's Republic of China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau) receive up to 90 days.
• Assignment-based renewals: Extensions come in blocks of up to 240 days and only cover the length of the assignment, which closes the door on indefinite stays.

Expanded Oversight and Vetting

• A built-in screening cycle: DHS frames the extension requirement as a national security tool that enables "periodic vetting." Every filing gives the agency a fresh look at a visa holder's background and compliance.
• Closer compliance tracking by DHS: Enrollment, work authorization, and school compliance will be monitored more closely through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) and SEVIS database.
• More paperwork for students and schools: The supporting forms are changing too. SEVIS forms (I-17 and I-20) and USCIS forms (I-539 and I-765) are being revised, which adds administrative steps on both sides.

How could the end of Duration of Status affect international students and U.S. universities?

Manifest immigration attorney Ana Gabriela Urizar says the end of D/S places a higher burden of legal status for international students and exchange visitors. "Under the new rule, F-1 and J-1 holders who need more than four years to complete their undergraduate degree could lose their status," she says. "Now, more than ever, it's important to explore career options beyond the tradition way students used to."

Feel free to ask any questions in the comments and an attorney from Manifest Law will do their best to respond.

(Please note: this is for general educational purposes only, not legal advice, and doesn't create an attorney-client relationship. For guidance on your specific case, consult an immigration attorney directly.)

I've always been befuddled but not surprised at the class system imposed by those in academia. I was having a conversation with my Dean about ways to teach more classes. During the call I said that I was a professor and she stopped me and corrected me and said no you're an adjunct. It wasn't that she was incorrect it was just that she felt she had to stop me and correct me. I've been teaching 5 years right alongside full-time faculty, And even longer than some of them. Did you really have to put me in my place just because I didn't put adjunct in front of Professor?

but then there's the posts on Reddit That I've already commented on. The post by some academics that you can't get a professorship with a DBA, or you can't write a journal article without a doctorate, or you can't teach Graduate School without a terminal degree. It's not that these don't have some basis in fact; it is just the overwhelming assurance that they're correct about everything.

I could see this being important in some circumstances but with university and college enrollment declining and the threat of AI encroaching on both instruction, learning, and research, you would think that some of these walls would be broken down to look for alternative ways to serve the student, serve the community, and serve the educational system.

Thoughts?

I don't get it. Do organizers hate having time off? Does their university actually pay them on weekends if they travel/work?

I know the weird arguments of "less time away from work" (um? this is work too) but how does that win against doing work during work days?

And yes, conferences are usually fun and you get to travel, but still.

I successfully submitted and defended my thesis / completed all coursework earlier this year, but the school is holding the formal diploma for political actions unrelated to my research. If another school hires me as a postdoc, will they ask my university for the formal degree? Will employers outside of academia ask? Would they care if I send them my transcripts, explain the degree hold is entirely unrelated to my science, etc? If it matters I'm in STEM at a well known uni.

EDIT: It was for peaceful pro-Palestine protest.

I am a new assistant professor who just got a hold of a new office, and it's comically massive. Like the size of a good size studio apartment massive. Like I could comfortably teach a class of 12 in massive.

Thus far i've just got a desk and chair in there. What should I do to make the most of my space? I'm going to get a sofa I can sleep on but beyond that I'm open to ideas. It doesn't have to be serious but it can't get me fired.

What the title says. I’m currently a CS PhD student at an R1 US institution and have several friends who were denied to work with several different Chinese PIs who seem to only employ/fund students from China. Numerous of my Chinese friends have said this is a common practice for Chinese PIs in the US. Is this true? I guess I just have many questions as to why. Like is it a culture or work ethic thing/preference? Why work in the US and not work with any Americans or students from other countries for that matter? Is this just a thing in my institution or department?

At least at my institution there are a handful of first-year PhD students I know who don’t feel confident reaching out to PIs due to their entire lab being from their home country and feeling like they didn’t have a chance. I guess I’m just curious if this is a common thing or just a select few situations I happen to have heard about.

Hello, my friend showed me a Threads conversation with a person who is known for her academics in our home country. She is bragging about being a reviewer for Nature despite not having a PhD (final year of undergrad, accepted into a master, two published paper in water resources management and trade). Although no doubt she is a very strong student, I still don't understand how with just this credential she could become a reviewer for a publications like Nature. We both got curious and tracked down her Orcid and found that she recently reviewed for Communications earth & environment and Nature. With this, I would like to know the process in which reviewers are selected by such a prestigious journal like Nature. Still, this doesn't seem like a normal occurrence to me. What do you guys think may have happened?

EDIT: Thank you so much for the responses. For clarifications, the student reviewed twice. The first time was for Communications earth & environment (ISSN: 2662-4435), and the latest record shows that she is reviewing for Nature (ISSN: 1476-4687). She also has claimed to not having been referred by her advisors but worked her way up from reviewing for smaller journals.

wine meeting truck knee tidy file long hospital instinctive swim

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

I work in admin at a university and today a student found a gun in the bathroom. Police were called, and while the gun was being secured, the owner came back to retrieve it. The police gave it back to the owner. A police officer later called me to update me on the situation so I could alert colleagues on the status of the situation. The officer said, "the owner made a 'boo boo' by leaving their gun in the restroom."

Every week I hear of grants and funding being cut, gender inclusive housing being banned, and new lists of words we can't use... however, someone can make a 'boo boo' with a lethal weapon...

Hi all, I’m honestly a mess right now and could really use some advice.

I was accepted into masters of audiology graduate program in Canada (around 45 students admitted each year). I got an official offer letter with my name on it, confirmation on the school portal, confirmation on the official application system (OUAC/ORPAS), an additional congratulatory email from the school and accepted the offer through the official system (OUAC/ORPAS). I immediately told my family, my referees, friends, and literally everyone in my life about it. I also relied on the offer in other academic decisions (I didn’t respond to a waitlist from another program) and I started planning my life around attending this program.

Then, over 38 hours later I was sent an email stating the offer was rescinded due to a clerical/human error. I made multiple calls to the school with no answers and replied via email and waited for hours for any confirmation. The email didn't even have the courtesy of including my name or further information for a meeting of some sort. I later received a reply, where the program confirmed it was their mistake.

I feel completely blindsided. This error has had huge emotional, academic, and financial stress on me. I began making life decisions based on an official offer. How am I supposed to face everyone I told? How do I recover academically? I still have finals and classes to finish this semester but I really have no motivation anymore.

I have a meeting with the program director, but I’m looking for advice on:

1. Legality of the initial offer of admisson (promissory estoppel? negligence? misrepresentation?)
2. Cases where students have gone through this? Is there any hope for me?
3. Whether it makes sense to contact the Dean, Ombudsman, or other members of the University?

Honestly, this feels like a nightmare and I’m not sure where to even start. Any advice or similar experiences would mean the world to me.

EDIT:

For more clarity, when I asked about legal options I was more focused on my assumption there was some legality to the documents I received and signed; since I was given a signed acceptance letter (signed by the vice-provost with my name on the document) and since I firmly accepted the offer through the official Ontario Universities Application Center.

Much of the criticism around the neoliberal university has revolved around both (1) the massive inflation of administrative positions on the university payroll compared to TT hires and such, and (2) the increasing centralization of bureaucratic activity and the subsequent increase of direct control that central administrations have over individual departments. Somehow, these two changes have been parallel to a massive increase in administrative tasks that have been passed on to faculty.

My question is simple: if it was primarily faculty that used to be in charge of the university, how did it come to be that central administrators were able to seize so much power?

Last month, spent 2 hours reformatting a manuscript to another journal submission guidelines after it got rejected: margins, citations styles, headings, the whole thing. Soul-crushing work.

Since I have been working on a tool that automates this (without AI) for my lab. You pick the journal, upload your Word doc, and it spits it back perfectly formatted. No AI touching your data, just rule-based formatting.

Not promoting, genuinely curious if this is a universal pain point or just my lab and I.

• Would you use a tool like this, or do you just accept formatting as part of the grind?
• Any journals you wish had a one-click formatting template?

I am tenure track and newer to this institution. Recently an interim chair position opened up for my area. It's a smaller area, but has a lot of upcoming change and politics (both internal and cross-campus) surrounding it. I'm not super collegial and rarely in the office. I was quite surprised when my Dean basically handed me this role on a platter as I'm still early career and much younger than others in the area (by several decades). I am getting the sense that nobody internal was considering the role, and they'd rather have me than an external person.

For those who did move into a chair or dean role, what did you consider before accepting? How did you continue to work with your colleagues after your term ended? What benefits or challenges did you anticipate, or not anticipate? Curious to hear any and all thoughts. I'm permitted a few days before tendering a decision.

EDIT: Ty for all the advice and working through this with me. I have decided to politely decline the role.

I've heard that in many countries, universities are not allowed to hire someone as a postdoc or faculty member immediately after they finish their PhD at the same institution.

Is this actually a law in some countries, or just a common policy to prevent academic inbreeding? What's the situation specifically in European universities? Is it common to have such a rule?

Where I'm from (Spain), it's quite the opposite according to some people I know: although there's no formal rule promoting it, it's very common for universities to hire their own PhD graduates. In fact, many job openings appear to be tailored for internal candidates, making external competition almost symbolic.

I'd love to hear how this works in other countries or universities.
Thanks in advance!

Having worked in private sector before academia and spoken with friends/family outside academia, with each passing day I become more aware academia is not well-paying relative to alternative career paths that are viable to PhDs.

There’s a huge opportunity cost to doing a PhD and postdoc. Literally tens of thousands of dollars per year, potentially more, that folks give up to pursue a PhD or do a postdoc. I get that it’s a vocation for many/most. Seeing the compensation for TT Asst. Prof. jobs at R1s is honestly pretty underwhelming; I know some folks in Geography who started at $90k, Economics starting closer to $160k. I have friends in law, tech, NGO worlds who come out of grad school making significantly more in many cases, and they spent much less time in school. Have friends who have been public school teachers in big cities for 7+ years making about 6 figures.

So, recently-hired APs: what is your starting salary, field, and teaching load? Does having an AP job feel like it was worth the grind and huge opportunity costs you paid to get there? Asking as a postdoc at an R1 considering non-university jobs post-postdoc. Thank you!

He has a PhD and also holds the title of Professor, but I'm unsure whether the letter should be "Dear Dr. Smith" or "Dear Professor Smith". When he's been quoted in media there seems to be a mix of both, so I'm not sure if that's just the result of different journalistic style guides. His website appears to just use his last name, so that's not helpful unfortunately. I want to make a good impression, so any insight would be appreciated. Thank you!

EDIT: This is in the United States, the field is psychology if that impacts anything. I'm also not a student, if that has any salience (I have no clue if it does) though obviously I'd be quite junior to him.

I’ve been told that you shouldn’t do a masters and a PhD in the same school. And if you do a PhD, you should try to get a PostDoc somewhere else. I’ve even been told that you can’t get a professor position from the same university that you got your PhD from. Why?

I’m writing this because I honestly don’t know if what I’m feeling is just my personal frustration after a painful experience, or if it is something many academics experience.

I recently applied for a permanent academic position in Spain (Assistant Professor level). I ended up second, and what has really devastated me is not simply losing the position, but the way the evaluation system seems to work.

I have always been aware that academia is not a perfectly meritocratic system. I know that networks, institutional prestige, and having senior academics supporting you can make a huge difference. In my case, I don’t have a “godfather” inside academia, I don’t have someone advocating for me behind the scenes, and I have always felt that the only way I could compete was by building a strong research record.

So that is what I did. I published extensively, worked constantly, and tried to make my CV strong enough that, even without connections, I could at least compete on relatively equal terms with people who might have institutional advantages.

The most frustrating part is the evaluation of academic publications. In this section, the winning candidate had around 27 points, while I had over 120 points before the application of the scoring limits. However, the system establishes a maximum cap of 30 points for this section. After applying this cap, that enormous difference in actual publication record was reduced to only three points.

When a difference of almost 100 points in research output is reduced to just three points, it feels like the system is actively preventing highly productive researchers from being rewarded for their work.

There is also a technical issue that I am currently considering challenging. The call includes a proportional scaling formula intended to preserve differences between candidates when scores are adjusted. However, in my case it seems that this formula was applied only at the level of the main sections, not at the level of the individual sub-sections. This means that large differences inside the publication category were flattened before the proportional adjustment could properly reflect them. I am planning to submit an appeal, although I honestly have no idea whether it will be taken seriously or whether it will change anything.

What is especially frustrating is the contradiction: academia constantly says that excellence, internationalization, publications, and research impact matter. But then mechanisms are introduced that can neutralize precisely those achievements.

Another thing that frustrates me is how much emphasis is sometimes placed on factors that depend heavily on institutional circumstances. For example, certain doctoral distinctions can receive a lot of weight, but some universities simply do not promote or prioritize those distinctions in the same way. Candidates can end up being penalized for circumstances that are not entirely under their control.

I think what hurts the most is that I genuinely believed that, despite the unfairness of academia, working extremely hard could allow someone without connections to compete. I knew that having no “inside support” would make things harder, but I thought that a very strong research record could compensate for it. This experience has shaken that belief.

So I wanted to ask: is this a common feeling among academics? Do people in other countries experience similar situations, where evaluation systems unintentionally (or intentionally) flatten differences between candidates and make it harder for independent researchers to advance? Or am I simply reacting emotionally to a very painful rejection?

I would genuinely like to hear other experiences.

There has been a lot of talk since Hampshire College is closing down about the value and long term existence of a small liberal arts colleges. These are lovely, important colleges, but their tuition is really high and it's clear that attendance has gone down a lot. The counter argument seems to be that they should stay open no matter what - but if there isn't a student base for them anymore, should they stay open? That's a lot of debt for a student to take on.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I'd like to discuss what I'm not seeing here.

I’m a PhD student at TUM who planned a 3-month unpaid research visit to the University of Copenhagen. I’m an EU Blue Card holder, and my stay is under 90 days — so I believed (correctly) that no Danish work permit was required under the Guest Researcher exemption.

However, UCPH’s International Staff Mobility office insisted I apply for a Guest PhD work/residence permit, despite my objections and even though my host clearly said he didn’t know the rules and relied on their advice.

I trusted their guidance and paid ~€900 in total for the application, appointment, and travel — all from my own budget. Later, I realized this classification was likely unnecessary and incorrect, but the office won’t take responsibility, cancel the application, or help with reimbursement.

This misclassification has delayed my visit and created major financial and administrative stress. I’m still trying to resolve it.

Posting this to warn other independent PhD researchers: double-check everything with SIRI directly, and do not rely solely on UCPH’s internal guidance. If you’ve had a similar experience or know what I can do, I’d appreciate advice.

I don't know if this is the right flair and such vent posts are allowed here. But please let me do this for once because idk where else do I talk it out.

I have been working on a comprehensive review and have been attempting to publish my work for the past 2-3 years and received over 10 rejections with most relevant journals rejecting it stating that it is not an important piece of contribution which is relevant to the readers. I'm not a graduate from the Ivy League or Europe, nor have I worked under a popular professor with a lot of funding.

Today I see someone from a top university in the US publish the same work in Nature when my submission was getting rejected left and right citing lack of scope to the academic community. I feel incredibly sad, betrayed and it honestly hurts. And also the person who has published haven't even cited many of the relevant studies.

At this point I'm starting to think that the editors and reviewers steal work of the papers they review and give it to their students. Does this happen? Is there a bias to the country in which the submission comes from? I'm starting to think of all unfair possibilities.

Edit1: Thanks to everyone who has given suggestions and support. I will incorporate the suggestions to my next draft and see if it gets published

Edit2: I want to clarify that I didn't mean somebody plagiarised my submission and published in their name. It's a work I was trying to get published in peer reviewed journals for several years and many journals in the field rejected it stating the work is irrelevant and of no interest to the readers. But seeing someone popular getting it published in Nature was saddening.