aquaticapetheory

Trust me, you're looking at it wrong. LaTeX is a good thing. You don't have to use it; you get to use it. If you spend any time trying to typeset math in Word, you'll be happy to have LaTeX.

Person next to you watching a movie loudly on their phone? Lean in, pay intense attention, and laugh loudly at every other line (yes, even if it's a sad movie).

@Davor An electric stove is an appliance that sits on the floor and can be moved. A mini-split is not only attached to the wall with fasteners but has lines running through the wall to a unit outside that is also fixed in place. It is a fixture. My boiler only needs a few amps too but that must also be directly wired. My best guess on the logic is code steers you away from wall plugs where it can.

@Davor I don't follow why you would want to plug in something that's fixed permanently in place into a temporary connection like an outlet other than not having to run a line but then you could just wire it into the circuit that the outlet is on. I don't know for sure why the regulations are what they are but I would guess for safety reasons like not wanting a high amperage connection to go through a less reliable connection like a wall plug.

What you show is called a mini split. It's like a window unit that is split into 2 halves. The part that would be hanging out the window is not in the same box but is mounted separately outside. It is still connected to the thing in your picture by hydraulic and electrical lines. These are run outside through a wall. The electric is not plugged into an outlet, it is hard-wired back to the breaker box.

@BryanKrause @Bryan I realize that. I will likely find out more detail at some point and hope to be better equipped to understand the situation given the feedback here.

@Bryan Yes, it is vague and hypothetical since I am asking about someone else's situation. The best I expect here is "if this is the situation it's BS and action can be taken but otherwise they're out of luck." My impression is that the RA is for the first 2 (or 3) years and the new TA duty does not displace the original RA into later years. I also don't know if the original 50% RA is scaled down so that 25% TA can be added or if the student is being payed for 75% work but I doubt it.

@Neal I don't believe it is a requirement. I think the student chose this program over another because the other had a requirement for some TA time. This school may have some fine-print that says "you may be required to TA" but don't publicize it.

@Jon I assume you mean 100% of 50%. I would not consider that equivalent since the student has a PI that they are doing research for and the research work is not being put on hold for semesters with TA duty. But this is moot because the TA assignment started in the fall semester and is continuing in the spring semester. This is already at least 1/3 of the promised RA-only period where the bait was switched.

@Terry It was RA for (i think) 3 years. My impression was that it was of the form "we offer you a 50% research assistantship for the first 3 years" but i'm not 100% certain of the actual numbers. After that initial period, the student will have to find funding.

@Michael There is a grad student union at this school but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be taking action against this.

@Azor By "off-sides," I mean "against the rules." It seems to be that if a student is promised a 50% research assistantship but then gets a 25% RA and a 25% TA, that would be somehow illegal rather than just underhanded.

@Azor "as well." As I understand it, the RA is not going away but they also have to teach. I am not sure how that works with the original RA being 50%. It must have been scaled back to 25% RA and 25% TA but i don't know for sure. Scaling back the RA seems like it would be off-sides.

@xLeitix I am not the student in question so I don't know exactly what they have but the RA was in the offer letter. The exact wording and fine-print is not something I have access to.