I have had an exceedingly bright undergrad working in my lab over the summer. This week is her last before heading off to her home institution. Today she told me she didn't want to leave. She wants to stay and try to figure out what the enigmatic protein she's been working with really does.
Yes!!!!!!!!!! (Odyssey pumps fist in air)
Of course, she'll head back to her home at the end of the week. Maybe she'll come back next summer...
Showing posts with label winning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label winning. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Targeted reviewers?
There's been some discussion on various blogs about the "OMG! NSF is Completely Broken and the World is Going to End!" forum headed up by the disgruntled "Aureliano Buendia." See Prof-like Substance and DrugMonkey for some interesting comments.
Something mentioned in that forum and in a comment at DrugMonkey's piqued my interest. QoQ over at DM's asserted that the NSF is indeed broken and noted in support:
First, the identity of the reviewers is not public and changes from submission to submission -- so you can't target a grant.
You can't target a grant.* I'm not entirely sure what QoQ means by this, but I suspect they want to write their proposals for specific reviewers on the panel. Perhaps so they can try to "butter up" the reviewers by citing their work favorably and often, or to avoid having to write a proposal in more general language that reviewers not experts in the sub-sub-field can understand. Or maybe even both. Or neither.
It doesn't matter really, because targeting reviewers on the panel is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!
Why?
'Cos there ain't no guarantee that the reviewers you are targeting will get your proposal.
In fact the odds are not in the least bit favorable. Review panels at the NSF (and study sections at the NIH) cannot have experts from every sub-sub-field on them. Unless you want either panels with many dozens of members, or many, many more panels than currently exist (and there are already a lot). So the odds are there may be one reviewer at most who is an expert in your particular sub-sub-field (and that person is likely a competitor...).
Targeting panel members would be a particularly stupid thing to attempt (if you could) at the NSF where you could have anywhere from three to ten people reviewing your proposal. Usually three or so on the panel, and the rest as outside, "mail in" reviewers. Even if there is an expert on the panel you could target, one good review isn't even close to being enough to land funding. And let's be realistic - a panel member might be somewhat flattered by some "buttering up" in a proposal, but they're generally smart enough to recognize it for what it is.
Write your proposals for people only somewhat conversant with your corner of the field (and cite all the relevant literature, and none of the irrelevant). If you can't do that, chances are, you won't stand a chance of being funded.
* Actually, the NSF does let you do a form of targeting that a proposer would be foolish not to take advantage of. When you submit your proposal you are given the chance to suggest reviewers. In my experience NSF PO's do actually use some of these suggestions as outside reviewers. Obviously these need to be reasonable suggestions...
Something mentioned in that forum and in a comment at DrugMonkey's piqued my interest. QoQ over at DM's asserted that the NSF is indeed broken and noted in support:
First, the identity of the reviewers is not public and changes from submission to submission -- so you can't target a grant.
You can't target a grant.* I'm not entirely sure what QoQ means by this, but I suspect they want to write their proposals for specific reviewers on the panel. Perhaps so they can try to "butter up" the reviewers by citing their work favorably and often, or to avoid having to write a proposal in more general language that reviewers not experts in the sub-sub-field can understand. Or maybe even both. Or neither.
It doesn't matter really, because targeting reviewers on the panel is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!
Why?
'Cos there ain't no guarantee that the reviewers you are targeting will get your proposal.
In fact the odds are not in the least bit favorable. Review panels at the NSF (and study sections at the NIH) cannot have experts from every sub-sub-field on them. Unless you want either panels with many dozens of members, or many, many more panels than currently exist (and there are already a lot). So the odds are there may be one reviewer at most who is an expert in your particular sub-sub-field (and that person is likely a competitor...).
Targeting panel members would be a particularly stupid thing to attempt (if you could) at the NSF where you could have anywhere from three to ten people reviewing your proposal. Usually three or so on the panel, and the rest as outside, "mail in" reviewers. Even if there is an expert on the panel you could target, one good review isn't even close to being enough to land funding. And let's be realistic - a panel member might be somewhat flattered by some "buttering up" in a proposal, but they're generally smart enough to recognize it for what it is.
Write your proposals for people only somewhat conversant with your corner of the field (and cite all the relevant literature, and none of the irrelevant). If you can't do that, chances are, you won't stand a chance of being funded.
* Actually, the NSF does let you do a form of targeting that a proposer would be foolish not to take advantage of. When you submit your proposal you are given the chance to suggest reviewers. In my experience NSF PO's do actually use some of these suggestions as outside reviewers. Obviously these need to be reasonable suggestions...
Monday, February 15, 2010
Write for your reviewers
There was an interesting discussion over at DrugMonkey recently regarding perceived and/or real issues with the grant review process. In particular there was some back and forth over what to do when you receive bad reviews from someone who clearly isn't an expert in your area. My first thought on reading some of this was...
Why on earth would you EXPECT the reviewers of your proposal to be experts in your field?????
It takes very little thought to come to the realization that the odds are very much against the roster of an NIH study section or NSF review panel actually having even one such expert. It is simply unrealistic to expect that to be the case. And even if it is, your proposal may not be assigned to that person for a variety of reasons (conflict of interest, reviewer already overloaded etc.).
Having your proposal reviewed is nothing like having a manuscript reviewed. Journal editors have access to a much, much larger pool of potential reviewers than program officers (PO's). Editors have the "luxury" of identifying and contacting reviewers who really do know the specific area of each manuscript.* PO's are stuck with the study section/review panel roster, plus maybe some ad hoc reviewers. And those ad hocs may not be experts in your area. Even if they do use ad hocs (very commonplace at the NSF**), your PO, and you as a proposer, want reviewers who are on the panel. No matter how good the ad hoc reviews, if someone, preferably two someones, on the panel isn't pushing hard for your proposal it won't be funded. Period.
So why would you write a proposal thinking it's going to be reviewed by an expert? Don't. You'd just be screwing yourself. Write it for reviewers with a general knowledge of your area. That's grantology 101.
* Getting them to agree to review is another matter.
** At the NSF ad hocs submit reviews electronically and aren't present at the panel.
Why on earth would you EXPECT the reviewers of your proposal to be experts in your field?????
It takes very little thought to come to the realization that the odds are very much against the roster of an NIH study section or NSF review panel actually having even one such expert. It is simply unrealistic to expect that to be the case. And even if it is, your proposal may not be assigned to that person for a variety of reasons (conflict of interest, reviewer already overloaded etc.).
Having your proposal reviewed is nothing like having a manuscript reviewed. Journal editors have access to a much, much larger pool of potential reviewers than program officers (PO's). Editors have the "luxury" of identifying and contacting reviewers who really do know the specific area of each manuscript.* PO's are stuck with the study section/review panel roster, plus maybe some ad hoc reviewers. And those ad hocs may not be experts in your area. Even if they do use ad hocs (very commonplace at the NSF**), your PO, and you as a proposer, want reviewers who are on the panel. No matter how good the ad hoc reviews, if someone, preferably two someones, on the panel isn't pushing hard for your proposal it won't be funded. Period.
So why would you write a proposal thinking it's going to be reviewed by an expert? Don't. You'd just be screwing yourself. Write it for reviewers with a general knowledge of your area. That's grantology 101.
* Getting them to agree to review is another matter.
** At the NSF ad hocs submit reviews electronically and aren't present at the panel.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Kickass or kickarse science?
In my last post I referred to "kickass science." My piratical big brother and PiT both asserted it should be "arse" not "ass." So, dear readers, is it kickass...
or, kickarse?
Discuss.
or, kickarse?
Discuss.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Your science is not enough
There's an awful lot of good advice out there in the blogosphere on how to succeed at many aspects of academia. DrugMonkey and Writedit are great resources for grant-writing, Professor in Training and Prof-like Substance are chronicling the trials and tribulations of being tenure-track assistant profs in the biological sciences, DrDrA is transitioning to the next level, and FemaleScienceProfessor provides a great deal of useful information from the senior level, etc. One thing that I have not seen discussed very much is something I have a problem with...
Assertiveness.
Some grad students and postdocs might be surprised to hear that once you reach the giddy heights of an academic position your kickass science is no longer sufficient. It's what will get you that position, but it's not enough to progress in your field from there. Yes, you can obtain grants and publish based solely on the science, but it's not enough. It's necessary, and importantly, you need some kickass science first and foremost. But kickass science alone probably won't get you invited to speak at a meeting or another institution. It won't set up the collaborations with the heavy hitters and rising stars in your field. Kickass science might make you a familiar name in your field, but not necessarily a presence in the field. It won't necessarily get you the recognition you think you're due.
That's where assertiveness comes in. Want to know how many speakers at meetings (other than the heavy hitters) get those slots? They asked. They pushed themselves forward, told the organizers "I have kickass science, I can give a kickass presentation and I deserve a slot". Ditto for many of those people giving seminars at your institution. Ditto for a collaboration between a heavy hitter and a junior person. Ditto for invitations to submit manuscripts for special issues of journals. Ditto for some publications in GlamourMagz. It goes on all the time. Next time you find yourself thinking "How the hell did they get that invitation/collaboration?", remind yourself they probably asked. Pushed. Lobbied. It's something I'm not terribly good at, but I'm trying to improve (damn it, I'm good enough, I deserve that recognition!).
People are surprisingly often willing to give someone a chance. But just one. You need to deliver. If you promise a kickass presentation of kickass science you had better deliver. Offered a killer collaboration? Deliver it. Pushed for an invitation to submit a stellar manuscript? Make it better than stellar. Otherwise those doors will be slammed shut. Too many doors slammed on you will get you a reputation that's hard to get rid of.
Something to think about and work on.
Just remember though, you have to have the kickass science first.
Assertiveness.
Some grad students and postdocs might be surprised to hear that once you reach the giddy heights of an academic position your kickass science is no longer sufficient. It's what will get you that position, but it's not enough to progress in your field from there. Yes, you can obtain grants and publish based solely on the science, but it's not enough. It's necessary, and importantly, you need some kickass science first and foremost. But kickass science alone probably won't get you invited to speak at a meeting or another institution. It won't set up the collaborations with the heavy hitters and rising stars in your field. Kickass science might make you a familiar name in your field, but not necessarily a presence in the field. It won't necessarily get you the recognition you think you're due.
That's where assertiveness comes in. Want to know how many speakers at meetings (other than the heavy hitters) get those slots? They asked. They pushed themselves forward, told the organizers "I have kickass science, I can give a kickass presentation and I deserve a slot". Ditto for many of those people giving seminars at your institution. Ditto for a collaboration between a heavy hitter and a junior person. Ditto for invitations to submit manuscripts for special issues of journals. Ditto for some publications in GlamourMagz. It goes on all the time. Next time you find yourself thinking "How the hell did they get that invitation/collaboration?", remind yourself they probably asked. Pushed. Lobbied. It's something I'm not terribly good at, but I'm trying to improve (damn it, I'm good enough, I deserve that recognition!).
People are surprisingly often willing to give someone a chance. But just one. You need to deliver. If you promise a kickass presentation of kickass science you had better deliver. Offered a killer collaboration? Deliver it. Pushed for an invitation to submit a stellar manuscript? Make it better than stellar. Otherwise those doors will be slammed shut. Too many doors slammed on you will get you a reputation that's hard to get rid of.
Something to think about and work on.
Just remember though, you have to have the kickass science first.
Friday, October 30, 2009
What's your h-index?
Actually I don't really want to know. Listing h-indices here would be akin to having a pissing contest. Puerile, messy and smelly...
In recent years I've noticed an increase in the number of people who list the number of times their publications have been cited in their c.v.'s and/or biosketches.* Many have started listing their h-indices as well. At first I viewed this as a form of bragging. But now I've seen it enough that I'm beginning to pay attention. We could argue ad infinitum as to whether number of citations and/or h-indices are useful measures of a person's productivity and standing in their field.** That's akin to the interminable Mac vs. PC arguments*** and I'm really not interested in that kind of semi-religious "discussion". What I am interested in is people's opinions as to whether or not this is a reasonable practice. Do any of my readers list citation statistics in their c.v.'s or biosketches? What are your thoughts on this? Do your respective departments take such things into account come annual review time (which is now for many of us)?
I don't list citation statistics in my c.v./biosketch (but might do so in the future if it seems advantageous). And my department doesn't formally consider such things, although I suspect some of the senior faculty spend some time on ISI's Web of Knowledge prior to annual reviews figuring out the stats on the more junior faculty.
Finally, I wouldn't recommend grad students and junior postdocs listing such stats unless they have a really highly cited paper or two. I have seen senior postdocs applying for TT positions list their stats. In some cases it helps. In others, not so much. It's a good idea to poke around and see how you stack up versus your peers before making the decision.
* Yes, in biosketches in grant proposals. At least in NSF and private foundation proposals.
** Personally I find number of publications, average number of citations per publication, plus h-index the most informative combination, but recognize even that has flaws.
*** Mac.
In recent years I've noticed an increase in the number of people who list the number of times their publications have been cited in their c.v.'s and/or biosketches.* Many have started listing their h-indices as well. At first I viewed this as a form of bragging. But now I've seen it enough that I'm beginning to pay attention. We could argue ad infinitum as to whether number of citations and/or h-indices are useful measures of a person's productivity and standing in their field.** That's akin to the interminable Mac vs. PC arguments*** and I'm really not interested in that kind of semi-religious "discussion". What I am interested in is people's opinions as to whether or not this is a reasonable practice. Do any of my readers list citation statistics in their c.v.'s or biosketches? What are your thoughts on this? Do your respective departments take such things into account come annual review time (which is now for many of us)?
I don't list citation statistics in my c.v./biosketch (but might do so in the future if it seems advantageous). And my department doesn't formally consider such things, although I suspect some of the senior faculty spend some time on ISI's Web of Knowledge prior to annual reviews figuring out the stats on the more junior faculty.
Finally, I wouldn't recommend grad students and junior postdocs listing such stats unless they have a really highly cited paper or two. I have seen senior postdocs applying for TT positions list their stats. In some cases it helps. In others, not so much. It's a good idea to poke around and see how you stack up versus your peers before making the decision.
* Yes, in biosketches in grant proposals. At least in NSF and private foundation proposals.
** Personally I find number of publications, average number of citations per publication, plus h-index the most informative combination, but recognize even that has flaws.
*** Mac.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Liberation
We had one humungous mother of a thunderstorm come through a couple of days ago. Knocked out the power in the building I work in.
It fried my office phone.
Woohoo!!11!!!11!!!
It fried my office phone.
Woohoo!!11!!!11!!!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Herding cats
I'm in the midst of writing an equipment proposal for a bright shiny new toy that will be really, really useful. To a lot of the faculty here. Although I've never written this kind of proposal before I'm not finding the writing terribly difficult - I know enough about the instrument and what we'll do with it to wax lyrical. No, it's not the writing that's getting to me. It's extracting information from my fellow faculty. It's like herding cats.
Odyssey trying to corral fellow faculty.
All I need from each of them is a biosketch, list of current and pending funding, and a paragraph or two describing the research they would do with the instrument. Is that really so hard?
Apparently it is. To the point that I can now confidently state a new law...
Odyssey's law of equipment proposal writing:
The ability to obtain from a faculty member useful information required for an equipment proposal is inversely proportional to just how useful that piece of equipment would be to that person.
Anyone got a good bullwhip I can borrow?
Odyssey trying to corral fellow faculty.
All I need from each of them is a biosketch, list of current and pending funding, and a paragraph or two describing the research they would do with the instrument. Is that really so hard?
Apparently it is. To the point that I can now confidently state a new law...
Odyssey's law of equipment proposal writing:
The ability to obtain from a faculty member useful information required for an equipment proposal is inversely proportional to just how useful that piece of equipment would be to that person.
Anyone got a good bullwhip I can borrow?
Friday, June 19, 2009
This and that
I heard this morning that my late Nanna's house was sold. She passed away earlier this year. I knew the house was on the market but hadn't really thought about it in depth. It's actually quite sad - I have some fond childhood memories of that old place. The fig tree in the backyard, the lanes out the back and on the side, the "old house" smell*... Sigh.
On a brighter note, I'm off to a smallish six day meeting this Sunday. Lots of good people will be there. My goals (you should always have goals, otherwise why attend?) are to:
i) get feedback on my new major research project - progress has been slow but steady,
ii) get feedback on my new major research project's bride, which is showing signs of life,
iii) catch up with old friends/collaborators,
iv) make new friends/collaborators,
v) score at least two seminar invites, and
vi) not make a fool of myself.
Goal vi) might be the hardest.
And finally a quote from my supertech: "Cloning always works. One day."
* Or was it an "old person" smell?
On a brighter note, I'm off to a smallish six day meeting this Sunday. Lots of good people will be there. My goals (you should always have goals, otherwise why attend?) are to:
i) get feedback on my new major research project - progress has been slow but steady,
ii) get feedback on my new major research project's bride, which is showing signs of life,
iii) catch up with old friends/collaborators,
iv) make new friends/collaborators,
v) score at least two seminar invites, and
vi) not make a fool of myself.
Goal vi) might be the hardest.
And finally a quote from my supertech: "Cloning always works. One day."
* Or was it an "old person" smell?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Ultimate proof that evolution is real
If this doesn't convince you we're closely related to the apes, I don't know what will.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Off I go then
I'm off on vacation for the next two weeks. Woo hoo!
It starts with my little brother's wedding this weekend where I'm expecting something along these lines:
See you all in a couple of weeks!
It starts with my little brother's wedding this weekend where I'm expecting something along these lines:
See you all in a couple of weeks!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Happiness...
...is a full and productive lab.
So far this year I've snatched supertech from the jaws of dysfunction, picked up a very good grad student, started a new and talented undergrad, and am working with a very bright high school student.
The lab is humming along.
So much so that I've had to suspend the weekly beatings.
So far this year I've snatched supertech from the jaws of dysfunction, picked up a very good grad student, started a new and talented undergrad, and am working with a very bright high school student.
The lab is humming along.
So much so that I've had to suspend the weekly beatings.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Oh dear...
As of this moment, my blog is the top hit for Google searches using:
"how many papers needed for tenure"
"papers needed for tenure"
"papers for tenure"
and number two for:
"how many papers for tenure"
Not that I care that people find my blog that way (I get 4-5 hits a day from people using those searches - and might even get more now with this post). It's more concerning that there are that many people who think they can find the answer on the internet.
Oh, and for those who find this post using such a search, read this.
"how many papers needed for tenure"
"papers needed for tenure"
"papers for tenure"
and number two for:
"how many papers for tenure"
Not that I care that people find my blog that way (I get 4-5 hits a day from people using those searches - and might even get more now with this post). It's more concerning that there are that many people who think they can find the answer on the internet.
Oh, and for those who find this post using such a search, read this.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
How Many Papers for Tenure?
The title of this entry comes from a Google search a recent visitor to my blog used.
Good question.
I can't answer it.
The only people who can give you some kind of answer to this are senior faculty in your department (and possibly college), and yourself.
But you absolutely must know the answer very early in the tenure-track process. Preferably before you officially start your position. At the very latest six months in.
So how do you find out how many papers you need? You need to do two things:
1) Ask. Ask early and often. Ask the senior faculty in your department. If you've met some, ask senior faculty in related departments within your college (e.g. within medicine, or within arts and sciences). You may not get a straight answer. You may get several different answers. Hopefully you will get some kind of answer.
2) Look it up. Find out how many publications the last few people who made tenure in your department had. No one tenured in the last few years? Look up the publication totals of recently tenured people in related departments within your college.
Once you've done both of the above, take the largest of the answers you've found (they may not match up).
That's the absolute minimum number of publications you are aiming for.
Absolute minimum. You want more. You may need more.
The answer to the question "how many papers needed for tenure?" is not set in stone.
[UPDATE] Do apply some common sense to the above. Let's say your senior colleagues provide you with a consensus estimate of X publications, and the last three people to get tenure in your department had (X+1), (X+2), and (X+10) publications. Take (X+2) as your minimum goal.
Good question.
I can't answer it.
The only people who can give you some kind of answer to this are senior faculty in your department (and possibly college), and yourself.
But you absolutely must know the answer very early in the tenure-track process. Preferably before you officially start your position. At the very latest six months in.
So how do you find out how many papers you need? You need to do two things:
1) Ask. Ask early and often. Ask the senior faculty in your department. If you've met some, ask senior faculty in related departments within your college (e.g. within medicine, or within arts and sciences). You may not get a straight answer. You may get several different answers. Hopefully you will get some kind of answer.
2) Look it up. Find out how many publications the last few people who made tenure in your department had. No one tenured in the last few years? Look up the publication totals of recently tenured people in related departments within your college.
Once you've done both of the above, take the largest of the answers you've found (they may not match up).
That's the absolute minimum number of publications you are aiming for.
Absolute minimum. You want more. You may need more.
The answer to the question "how many papers needed for tenure?" is not set in stone.
[UPDATE] Do apply some common sense to the above. Let's say your senior colleagues provide you with a consensus estimate of X publications, and the last three people to get tenure in your department had (X+1), (X+2), and (X+10) publications. Take (X+2) as your minimum goal.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Dear Future Applicant for Tenure and Promotion
Your time on the tenure track is thundering its way towards the big decision. Soon you are going to have to put together that thick wad of documents known as your tenure packet/dossier/file. All of the documents in that packet are important, but some are more important than others. None are more important than your curriculum vitae. This document, your c.v., is a summary of almost everything needed to evaluate you for tenure and promotion. The other documents just provide the details.
So, dear applicant, please take the time and spend the effort to make your c.v. a document that will help those evaluating you come to the right decision. Because we really do want to see you be promoted with tenure. (Unless of course one of us is an obnoxious dickwad.)
You can ease our task by making all the information we need easy to find and read. Put the important stuff up front, and leave out the truly unnecessary.
And please don't use your c.v. to demonstrate your artistic nature. Please. Don't.
Do have a neat, logically organized c.v. And spell check it. A sloppy, disorganized c.v. makes you look... well, sloppy and disorganized. Not really what I want in a colleague.
Here are some further thoughts on some (not all) of the basics:
Background/Training/Education
My personal preference is for this to be in reverse chronological order, going from your current position back to your undergraduate schooling. Leave out where you went to high school* - really, we don't give a rat's rear end. And those perfect SAT/GPA/GRE scores you're so proud of?* Not of any interest to us when it comes to tenure decision time.
Publications
Reverse chronological order please. That Journal of Biological Chemistry paper you published while in elementary school? Very impressive, but not going to count towards tenure. Put the papers you've generated as an independent PI first. Those are the only ones that count. And do us a favor. Make it very clear what papers came out of which positions - I personally like subheadings denoting "Papers arising from my postdoctoral work", "Papers arising from my graduate work" etc. It's important to include these because they establish your history. But they won't count towards tenure.
And those manuscripts on your postdoctoral work you published while on tenure track? Sorry, they don't count towards tenure. They belong in the "Papers arising from my postdoctoral work" group. No, really, they don't count. Ever.**
What about papers "in preparation"? Not going to count. Don't bother with them.
Okay, if you really, really must. One "in preparation". Two at the very most. They still won't count. Three or four "in preparation"? That's asking for trouble. Unless you've published a gazillion papers while on tenure track - but they still won't count. If you're a little short on published papers and list three or four "in preparation"?* You've just given me the impression you have trouble finishing things, even with the tenure guillotine hanging over your head.
Ten "in preparation"?* You're a delusional fool. Granted, I've met some tenured delusional fools, but to a person they hid their delusional foolishness until after they got tenure.
Funding
Start with current/active funding. That's the most important by far. Actually it's really all that counts. Then list pending. If you have a revised grant pending that got a good score the last time it was reviewed, give us the score. Expired/previous funding comes last. Within each subgroup, reverse chronological order please.
Awards
You won a trophy for badminton at high school? How nice. Doesn't count. Please just list the relevant stuff. Preferably in reverse chronological order.
Professional Society Membership
Listing this doesn't count for much, but not listing it looks... odd.* It suggests that you're not involved in your field outside of your own research program.
Internal Service
Please indicate what level each committee is. A Graduate Curriculum Committee at the University level is a very different beast to one at the Department level. President of your undergraduate chemistry club? Doesn't count.
External Service
You do have some, right? List the journals you reviewed manuscripts for and the agencies you reviewed proposals for. Editorial boards. Professional society activities. These are important. To get tenure and promotion you need to demonstrate that you have national standing. Recent national standing.
Bottom line: Put the stuff that counts up front. You do know what counts at your institution, right?
* Yes, I have seen this in a c.v. within a tenure packet.
** This topic deserves a post all of it's own.
So, dear applicant, please take the time and spend the effort to make your c.v. a document that will help those evaluating you come to the right decision. Because we really do want to see you be promoted with tenure. (Unless of course one of us is an obnoxious dickwad.)
You can ease our task by making all the information we need easy to find and read. Put the important stuff up front, and leave out the truly unnecessary.
And please don't use your c.v. to demonstrate your artistic nature. Please. Don't.
Do have a neat, logically organized c.v. And spell check it. A sloppy, disorganized c.v. makes you look... well, sloppy and disorganized. Not really what I want in a colleague.
Here are some further thoughts on some (not all) of the basics:
Background/Training/Education
My personal preference is for this to be in reverse chronological order, going from your current position back to your undergraduate schooling. Leave out where you went to high school* - really, we don't give a rat's rear end. And those perfect SAT/GPA/GRE scores you're so proud of?* Not of any interest to us when it comes to tenure decision time.
Publications
Reverse chronological order please. That Journal of Biological Chemistry paper you published while in elementary school? Very impressive, but not going to count towards tenure. Put the papers you've generated as an independent PI first. Those are the only ones that count. And do us a favor. Make it very clear what papers came out of which positions - I personally like subheadings denoting "Papers arising from my postdoctoral work", "Papers arising from my graduate work" etc. It's important to include these because they establish your history. But they won't count towards tenure.
And those manuscripts on your postdoctoral work you published while on tenure track? Sorry, they don't count towards tenure. They belong in the "Papers arising from my postdoctoral work" group. No, really, they don't count. Ever.**
What about papers "in preparation"? Not going to count. Don't bother with them.
Okay, if you really, really must. One "in preparation". Two at the very most. They still won't count. Three or four "in preparation"? That's asking for trouble. Unless you've published a gazillion papers while on tenure track - but they still won't count. If you're a little short on published papers and list three or four "in preparation"?* You've just given me the impression you have trouble finishing things, even with the tenure guillotine hanging over your head.
Ten "in preparation"?* You're a delusional fool. Granted, I've met some tenured delusional fools, but to a person they hid their delusional foolishness until after they got tenure.
Funding
Start with current/active funding. That's the most important by far. Actually it's really all that counts. Then list pending. If you have a revised grant pending that got a good score the last time it was reviewed, give us the score. Expired/previous funding comes last. Within each subgroup, reverse chronological order please.
Awards
You won a trophy for badminton at high school? How nice. Doesn't count. Please just list the relevant stuff. Preferably in reverse chronological order.
Professional Society Membership
Listing this doesn't count for much, but not listing it looks... odd.* It suggests that you're not involved in your field outside of your own research program.
Internal Service
Please indicate what level each committee is. A Graduate Curriculum Committee at the University level is a very different beast to one at the Department level. President of your undergraduate chemistry club? Doesn't count.
External Service
You do have some, right? List the journals you reviewed manuscripts for and the agencies you reviewed proposals for. Editorial boards. Professional society activities. These are important. To get tenure and promotion you need to demonstrate that you have national standing. Recent national standing.
Bottom line: Put the stuff that counts up front. You do know what counts at your institution, right?
* Yes, I have seen this in a c.v. within a tenure packet.
** This topic deserves a post all of it's own.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
I never win anything
I have a much less than stellar record when it comes to winning things. Contests, lotteries, gambling of various sorts. It's not clear to me whether fate is conspiring against me or I'm just a living demonstration of the odds against winning those sorts of things...
But things can change. I just won a blue one of these! The 8GB version. Just for filling out a survey for a foundation that supports research into a particular disease. Happy, happy, joy, joy!
But things can change. I just won a blue one of these! The 8GB version. Just for filling out a survey for a foundation that supports research into a particular disease. Happy, happy, joy, joy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)