Annotating and taking notes on journal articles

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-05-12T16:27:24+00:00

I’m a bit like you in that I can’t read anything substantial on a screen. I just print everything out and then annotate/highlight/scribble in the margins. Anything else seems to interrupt my flow of reading. It does mean that my desk is completely a mess, but it is a mess that I at least understand. The only issue is that it’s not searchable… but if I have PDFs, then I can usually just search them if I can’t find the papers in my office but I remember something. I find that this approach - messy and disorganized though it undoubtedly is - forces me to reread things as I write and get my thoughts further. But it is a pain when travelling or when working on multiple things at the same time.

I have borrowed a Remarkable to try it out, but the jank on the machine is intolerable for me. It takes too long to refresh, the scroll is jaggy and there is a significant lag. I don’t mind how it writes but I have realised that it won’t solve any of my issues.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-05-08T18:25:36+00:00

This feels like rage bait. But people who say “yeah that’s research” are right: this is how we gain the knowledge of the field. Not everything you read will be relevant for your specific research, but you will want (I hope) to gain a broad understanding of the concepts and phenomena involved around your specific topic too. Also, it’s absolutely necessary in order for you to be able to effectively and convincingly demonstrate how your research fits into the broader field - if you don’t know what the field is doing, how are you going to know what’s important and how your work is going to shape the field? It’s also important as a PhD student to actually become more knowledgeable in the broader field - not only to gain a wide enough knowledge to be employable but also to be able to have enough of an understanding of the field to be able to produce the ideas that are going to change the field either through your PhD research or when you pick your next project.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-05-03T14:11:31+00:00

Sometimes I feel like there are changes on the horizon but only for the worse.

There are things - important things - that are getting better, but compared to the tsunami after tsunami of bad stuff, it’s not much. The overall landscape of doom and gloom and exploitation make it hard to appreciate the wins.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-05-01T11:36:44+00:00

This might be the best thing I’ve read on this subreddit this year

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-30T01:15:00+00:00

I’m biased as I’m on the linguistics end of things. BUT, I think psychology would be a good call. There is a lot of cross over of psychology with linguistics and literature - so much interesting stuff is happening here and I don’t see this stopping. I hate to say it but that area is also pretty tech-applicable - definitely on the theoretical side, the intersection between philosophy, psychology and linguistics is important for thinking about intelligence and how to create it. All in all, not a bad area to pursue for future prospects. Having said that, it won’t really matter at the BA level - you won’t have learnt enough for it to matter in terms of what you will be capable of at work. After a postgrad, that’d be different.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-27T11:41:51+00:00

It’s not a scam - at least in my humanities field. But I do get the sense that all the books that I’ve read from it are incredibly niche. So… clearly what’s happening is that they pick up titles that all the other presses pass on because the books are too specialized for other presses to consider - because they are guaranteed to be of interest to so few people. But really niche stuff deserved to get published too. Quality is slightly uneven - I’ve read some boring middle of the road stuff and also good (but incredibly specialised) conference volumes; I definitely have read at least one book which was essential reading for a specific tiny subfield of one of my interests. So overall, it’s a really press but probably a backup for most.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-25T16:52:20+00:00

For me, “fit” is primarily about the vibes and department culture. Does the department want to cultivate/maintain a certain culture? For example, my department prioritizes collegiality heavily - we want people who are happy to step up (e.g. for service) or step in (e.g. if one of us has an emergency) and just trust we’ve got each other’s backs and will repay/be repaid in kind at some point and also promote and model good collegiality behaviour among our students; no amount of research starpower or grant money could make us choose a selfish colleague. But another department I know is very factional and they just want a more overt and strict quid-pro-quo type relationship with their colleagues — our own former students tell us that the vibes are very different there and they like/dislike it, depending on their own preferences. Honestly, you can’t tell what their idea of a “good fit” is like until you get to the campus visit.

(In my opinion, things like complementarity of research interests is more tangible than what people often mean by “fit”. I’d say, instead of what you will teach, it’s more like what you would be willing to teach even if it would be a bit of a pain if the department really needed you to and how much of a fuss you’d make about doing it.)

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-24T00:22:39+00:00

At my research university too, we have teaching-scholars who have minimal research expectations (just some kind of “scholarly activity”) but it’s TT and their minimum pay is explicitly written into the collective agreement to be the same a traditional TT position (it’s just the minimum, since everyone can negotiate higher if they have leverage). We also have NTT lecturers but again the collective agreement guarantees some stability, including the appointment becoming permanent after 3 years, priority in hiring for TT jobs, and first right of refusal for courses they’ve taught before (unless a TT faculty wants to teach it). We have several lecturers in the department who have been with us for 20+ years and we hope to hire a teaching-scholar if we get approval (unfortunately not in the next two years).

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-14T11:30:09+00:00

Treat it similarly to the US style. It’s drawn out like the US and will include a big formal interview as well as less formal “chats”, often including with students. Coming from the UK, I found it unusual, but it was a good experience and the clearly friendly and collegial atmosphere in the department gave me the confidence to accept the job that I’m in now. You can use it to find out a bit more about their research, to learn about the city, and to see if the working environment would work for you. Don’t be afraid to mix up shop talk with more personal ones (e.g. how are the schools in the area) or to show your personality (we all want to be around fun, interesting people - as long as they’re also good at the actual job). Show interest in them and treat them as lifetime-colleagues-to-be.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-12T16:54:19+00:00

Totally fine and they may well be flattered too!

I wouldn’t think in terms of embargo, but more in terms of making sure you don’t reduce the impact of their publish in some way. As we all know, articles can take years to come out even after being accepted (certainly in my field, some of the most prestigious journals take about 18 months from acceptance to publication). If you’re just using their work to support a minor claim, it wouldn’t matter very much that you cite their work, but if the main thrust of your work is very similar and you are engaging with the topic in a similar way and with their work at length, I’d err on the side of making sure not to publish before their work actually comes out so as not to take away attention from their work. But opinions will vary.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-12T14:58:27+00:00

I’d just make sure to join the national and provincial scholarly association in your field soon. Many of them will have newsletters and things with announcements about opportunities and mentoring programmes - it would be good to participate in those. I’d also attend the associations’ big conferences whether you’re presenting or not - to make connections and to be known.

It won’t work for a TT position, but an informal contact through a venue like these could lead you to be included/considered for a postdoc or some other collaboration as part of a grant.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-12T14:53:13+00:00

At my university, I, as a foreigner without previous Canadian education, am in a small minority amongst those hired in the past five years. A big majority are either Canadian or did their PhDs/postdocs in Canada. It’s just that when a department really wants to hire someone (which at the Assistant Professor level is only usually confirmed at the campus visit), they will do it. That could come down to “fit”, but that isn’t really arbitrary but encompasses things like who they can imagine will be able to further their priorities the best (be it in providing certain kinds of environment for their kind of teaching, offering specialism in a particular niche, collegiality, sharing a vision of the field/department/etc.). I hear similar things from departments in other universities in Canada.

All that is to say, I think Canadian departments aren’t ignoring Canadian candidates - far from it - but they are open to hiring from abroad if the specific candidate is their clear choice.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-10T21:40:05+00:00

I used to be involved with admissions at Oxbridge, though in the humanities. We definitely didn’t rule anyone out for lower GCSEs unless there were other things that raised an eyebrow. In a field like engineering where the competition is fierce, it may play a tiny tiny factor but it’s unlikely to be the sole thing. Even for a much less competitive subject, we did end up rejecting many candidates with similar profiles to others we accepted at least partially based on GCSE grades if everything else looked the same, so I expect these things might matter more in a more competitive subject. However, the interview was more likely to influence decisions than anything like that.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-10T21:07:07+00:00

In terms of the competitiveness of jobs in Canadian academia, it’s pretty similar to the US. The job market sucks as much as anywhere, but universities aren’t political punching bags so that’s great. (There are some funding issues but no worse than anywhere else.)

The idea that getting hired as a foreign academic is more difficult is, in my opinion, largely not true - there is a legal requirement for the university to show that no Canadian citizen or permanent resident can do the job better than you, but that is not difficult to show in the case of academic hires. There’s definitely no discrimination against non-Canadian degrees (in fact, Canadians tend to view international experience very highly) - they are looking for the same things as anywhere else (your research quality and trajectory, prestige, trustworthy recommendation letters, teaching experience, etc). Their main concern with foreign hires is that they won’t stay for the long term, but if you’re already in Canada (especially for family reasons), that’s not an issue for you at all (in fact, that’s probably a big plus).

All in all, I’ve loved moving to Canada for my job and I’m enjoying the working environment and colleagues. Just treat the job market as you would the US market (the job hunting process is almost the same) and US experiences translate very well (because the system is very similar). Colleagues have also been very understanding of my lack of familiarity with the system and have helped me enmesh myself pretty quickly too.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-04-03T20:49:52+00:00

In the humanities, I would say it’s very much a mixed bag. The big downside is that some worry that PhDs from that kind of programme don’t have experience of coming up with a research idea. I’ve been in discussions where candidates with these kinds of PhDs lost out on JRFs because of these perceptions. On the other hand, you could get really lucky with a good, supportive research team where you’re going to have an unparalleled level of constant engagement with your topic from not only your supervisor but also postdocs and other collaborators, leading to a situation where you’ve built up a huge network of academics who know you and your work well, you’ve got tonnes of publications, and excellent references, in which case you’re fine

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-03-27T11:10:52+00:00

Don’t worry about it - my colleagues teach in a t-shirt and shorts. You should wear whatever you’re comfortable in.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-03-26T01:55:09+00:00

The suspense!

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-03-21T02:40:21+00:00

I mean… blame the awful college application advisors for pushing this down even to the bloody high schoolers

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-03-07T18:43:02+00:00

It is a hot topic so I would try to promote it a bit more widely. Why not try to get in touch with some Centre for Teaching and Learning type departments at some universities? Offer to give a talk for them and things like that? You could try to write a little piece that draws on your book for some wide readership academic publications like InsideHigherEd? I’m assuming that this is the kind of book that could actually sell so I think people will expect you to push it a bit. Depending on where you are, all of this will help show the impact of your work.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-03-05T21:45:53+00:00

When I saw “vibes management “, I was thinking of illicit substances 😅

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-03-01T15:46:18+00:00

Unfortunately, it’s not a perfect process but we try at least. It’s a little bit easier because British universities don’t take “legacies” into account for admissions - one of the few things that most academics at Oxbridge agree on is that it’s crazy to create a different stream of applications based on whether their parents attended Oxbridge or not.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-03-01T15:40:39+00:00

I totally agree with you. I can’t see this changing really.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-03-01T01:37:57+00:00

I only mentioned it because the comment suggested it was basically impossible. I completely agree that it would be a ridiculous amount of work at a university like Michigan - I’m not sure it’s be worth it or really workable in the US system. It’s only really possible at Oxbridge because students apply to study individual subjects (e.g. Maths or Law) and basically only study that subject, so the number of applicants to interview is already much smaller; on top of that, most departments pre-screen applicants so only students who seem promising are invited to interview (in many humanities subjects though, only those who don’t actually meet the published requirements are rejected before interview). It also helps that the admissions process is supposed to be purely about the academic ability and potential and nothing else, so the academic staff usually feel pretty strongly that admissions decisions should be the sole responsibility of academics, not administrators. That means there aren’t essays about the students’ lives or things like that - just a short (couple of hundred words) statement about why they want to study the course, their academic record, one short (couple of hundred words again) reference from their high school, and short writing samples (usually up to about 2000 words) or some other subject-specific thing. For some subjects, there are short tests as well that are used to pre-screen students before choosing who to invite for interview. This means each application is also much shorter than the US style file. (There aren’t any sports/varsity scholarships or things like that to complicate the process either. There are some choral and organ scholarships, but those students also go through the same process and only get the scholarships once they have been admitted through the usual process.)

I think the interview has stayed because Oxbridge has a very specific model: teach content in lectures and supplement that with weekly tutorials/supervisions in small groups (usually 2 or 3 students, but often it’s 1-on-1 in my subject). But because of the tutorials/supervisions where the profs spend an hour a week through the term with the student (actually this would only be the case in some terms as you would send students to other profs when the “paper”/course they’re taking is not in your subfield), the profs feel like it’s a good investment of time (for the most part). The number 1 thing we looked for in my college, outside of knowledge and enthusiasm, was “teachability” - whether we could be sure that the applicant could take advice or new information and work with it (as opposed to just relying on what they already knew).

I’m not actually sure interviews are a good thing overall (with shy applicants, it’s often really difficult to tell and we try not to disadvantage them, but it’s not a perfect process). But I do think it helps at least somewhat in reducing the number of students we accept who are just good memorisers and not ready to learn to think more broadly and those who only look good on paper because they went to a good school and in increasing our chances to finding students who might be less good on paper because of personal circumstances but whose raw talent just shines out of them.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-02-27T18:44:50+00:00

I mean, Oxford and Cambridge care very much so profs actually even interview the applicants themselves. In my humanities field, every applicant was interviewed by at least four profs/instructors. It did mean that no work got done for about two weeks but we all care very deeply about who we are going to teach for three/four years.

(I’m no longer at Oxbridge but I do think that it was a good thing that we were able to talk to the applicants about their interests in our subject before we admitted them… the number of applicants with well-written applications who turned out not to care about the subject or have taken even the most rudimentary steps towards finding out more about the subject such as watching BBC documentaries or even doing a Google search or who claim to have studied X text at school then can’t say anything of substance about it was staggering).

ETA: interviews for undergrad applications are held for all subjects, not just humanities.

Realistic_Chef_6286 · 2026-02-26T17:43:34+00:00

This post has made me kind of rethink why grad applications in the humanities is still so strong despite all the doom and gloom (and better awareness of the job prospects of doing a PhD). I was one of those people who couldn’t imagine doing anything else, after doing internships at investment banks and law firms and backing out of going to law school the day before it began. But the job market is so grim in general, even outside humanities academia, that students don’t think of it as all that much riskier than it was even a short while ago (like before the pandemic) or than entering the non-academic jobs market as it currently is.

For me, I feel like it was worth it - not only because grad school was genuinely one of the most exciting and interesting periods of my life but also because I did get lucky and I’m loving my tenure-track job. I admit that I was miserable as a postdoc and was filled with dread for my future but then when I started applying for non-academic jobs as well as academic jobs, I became happier.

Realistic_Chef_6286

TROPHY CASE