You win

Thanks for all the great advice about the job application. In the end, I did it. I think the application was a lot stronger than I ever thought it would be at this point in my postdoc, so I didn't feel like an ass when I pressed submit. I'm also really happy to have a research and teaching statement ready to revise for future applications.

It's funny because if I had read a post on any of your blogs that was similar to what I wrote last week, I would have responded as you all did -- totally apply! make the difficult decision when there's actually a decision to make! a man wouldn't hesitate! it's excellent practice! -- and yet, it was a real dilemma for a couple of days because my emotions were clouding my judgement. My friends have always tended to comment that I'm very rational and not overly emotional, so I'm always taken by surprise when my emotions interfere with decisions. I'm not complaining about that because I think it's helpful to listen to your emotions--your gut--to make sure you're considering factors that might be difficult to prioritize in a rational way. I'm happy to be emotional sometimes.

Anyway, I'm grateful for this wonderful blog community!

Culture shock

So I'm applying for this job in Far Off Land. It's not really what I had in mind, especially for my first position out of grad school, and it's very unlikely that my bid for it will be successful. But still, I'm applying, and I would like for my application to not be laughable.

Since I hadn't really planned on applying for anything other than postdocs at this point, I'm not sure how to prepare a good application. On top of that, I'm noticing some cultural differences that are confusing me. Far Off Land is quite similar to the US overall, but minor differences crop up from time to time. EGM and I note them with interest (or sometimes frustration) and then move on. In other words, the subtle cultural differences haven't really had any impact on my behavior, like how I deal with EGM or his family.

But now with this job thing, I'm confronted with some small things that seem totally weird. For example, they suggest writing your interests and hobbies on your cv. That feels uncomfortable to me, since I haven't seen it before. Where do I write that? What sorts of things are cv-worthy? I don't really have a whole heck of a lot of hobbies -- can I put that I really love watching Lost? Or that I spend much of my free time reading anonymous blogs? I'm guessing they expect the applicants to say how much they love back-country camping or rock climbing or something. I mean, I like camping and all but it's not like it's a major hobby. Another example of things that seem strange to my American sensibilities: you can bring your family along if you get an interview, but you have to write in your cover letter if that is something you plan to do. huh?

So, I have no idea what to write in my cover letter, or how best to structure my cv for a job like this as it is. But now I'm even less confident because of the cultural differences at play. EGM has explained some of the issues, but is equally inexperienced and has been in the US long enough that I don't think he can offer a whole lot of help. It probably doesn't matter anyway since I'm not at all competitive for the job, but I'd still like to put my best foot forward on the application. Also, I guess it's a bit of a lesson in how EGM's background is different from mine, even though we overlook it most of the time.

Random bullets of barbecue beef steak stew

• Apparently Ecogeoman has the series of words, "barbecue beef steak stew" stuck in his head, along with "love fish", which we often call each other. I hate getting words stuck in my head. It's worse than having a song on repeat up there.
• Do you think that if I become a famous scientist, they will cast me in Dancing with the Stars?
• I taught myself a new statistical technique last week, but I was using some non-standard software, and I wasn't totally sure I was doing it right/meeting all the assumptions. Today someone who is expert at this technique generously spent a couple of hours teaching me the appropriate program and how to manipulate the data. It confirmed that I pretty much understood what I had learned on my own, and enhanced my understanding dramatically.
• There are two jobs advertised at a university in Far Off Land: one in my field and one in EGM's area. It is stunning that there is a job available for each of us at the same time at the same place, especially in FOL. They are at a level somewhat above our experience, so I think it's a long shot, but we have to apply. I wish applying for my first real job didn't coincide with the hot-and-heavy writing of my diss.
  

Post-docs and the Shit Economy

It seems to me that my anticipated graduation in August 2009 could not be more poorly timed. We all know that the economy is tanking and I fear post-docs will not be spared a hit. I think this will manifest in two ways.

First, I think there will be fewer positions available in the coming months. Universities are initiating hiring freezes, which means that people currently in post-docs will not be vacating them for faculty jobs. On top of that, poor funding rates mean that there may be fewer new post-doc positions created.

It's actually the latter that has me agitated and brings me to point number two. If established scientists aren't as successful at obtaining funding, then where will money for post-docs come from? I imagine that a larger proportion of new post-doc positions will be funded from start up packages. And that means that instead of getting a mentor who has decades of experience with a large network of contacts, you get one who is maybe two years ahead of you on the career path. In fact, I know of one case where someone wanted to do a second post-doc and was offered a position in a new hire's lab. Applicant and mentor got their Ph.Ds the same year. What's the point of doing a post-doc in that situation?

Physioprof wrote an excellent post at On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess about how to find and get a post-doc. The merits of early-career vs. senior faculty advisors have been argued at length; Phsyioprof is something of an advocate for early career mentors and I can see his points. But I wonder if physiology post-doc positions tend to last longer so that new faculty have been out of grad school for longer than people in my field typically have when they start faculty jobs. Frankly, I think I prefer someone at least mid-career for a post-doc mentor (although my opinion of young vs old for PhD advisors is more flexible). I want someone with lots of experience to teach me how to write big grants, manage a lab, navigate funding agency politics, and share their network. I may not have a choice in the matter and I'm sure a successful post-doc could happen with a junior faculty mentor. But do you see where I'm coming from? Have I offended any junior faculty readers I might have?

My career plan: shrug

I come from a working class family. My dad is a skilled tradesman, my mom stayed home with the kids until she became a receptionist/office manager when I was young. Most of my siblings went to college, but none had advanced degrees until S4 got a master’s to keep up her teaching certificate. In short, I had no experience with the concept of a Ph.D. before I went to college and had Ph.D.s for professors. Scientists were people interviewed on the news about cancer breakthroughs or marine biology.

I went to a smallish, non-Ph.D.-granting university with a tiny master’s program. I had little exposure to research until my last semester when I got to work in the lab of a new faculty for course credit. Right after I graduated, that assistant professor took me to a small, student-friendly meeting to present a poster representing my work. It was the best professional experience I’ve had.

Everything at that meeting was new and exciting. I didn’t know who anyone was, so I didn’t know who to be intimidated by and I was fearless. I learned so much and met so many people, including Research Advisor, who then hired me to be a technician.

I came to RA’s lab not knowing exactly what I wanted to do. I still wasn’t considering grad school; Ph.D.s were for other people, not me. I figured I’d try the research gig for about a year, then try something more applied for a year and see what I liked best. After several months, the research bug bit me and I eventually enrolled in a grad program.

Now that I am approaching the end of grad school, it’s really hard to imagine the next step, let alone where I’ll be ten years out. In the fall, I’ll probably have to start seriously looking for post-docs, which just feels weird. There are so many different directions that appeal to me where I could use my current knowledge and skills in new ways. I sort of figure an opportunity will come along and the choice will be obvious. But now there’s Ecogeoman’s career to consider as well. And there are some great opportunities on the horizon in my current (non-university) lab. While I know that it sometimes isn’t good to stay in the same lab after a Ph.D., quite frankly it might be the best way for me to get on a nonacademic career path.

So, here I am, almost with a Ph.D. that I never expected and never planned for. I’m optimistic that it will all work out in the end. I plan to keep crossing bridges as I come to them since that has served me well so far. Really, it’s all I know.

scientiae-carnival

Anything but a professor

Today I told Research Advisor that I don't want to be a professor. I have decided that I want nothing to do with academia long term.

I started grad school after working as a technician for a couple of years after college. Seeing that having only a bachelor's degree will get you little more than a dead-end job in research, I thought, "what do I need to do to keep doing this?" Then I enrolled in a Ph.D. program.

I have never been interested in teaching. When I started grad school, my ideal was to get a job with as much research and as little teaching as possible. But the more I learn about academia and the more I learn about myself, I realize that academia is not for me. The positions with the highest proportion of research are generally the most prestigious and competitive. Given my 40-hours-a-week-is-enough attitude, I don't think I'd be the best match for those jobs.

More than that, though, I've realized that I dislike the culture of a university -- the heirarchy, the competition, the inconsistent priorities. Facutly are pulled in a dozen directions at once, with so many people relying on them for urgent issues. I don't want to teach, but I also don't want to write upteen recommendation letters or read students' crappy first drafts, or explain the same concepts over and over. Yes, I appreciate that someone is doing that for me. But it doesn't mean that I want to do it. Frankly, I don't even want to mentor grad students.

There are several government agencies that have research facilities where I could work. Of course, those research-only positions are not easy to get. Soft money isn't so attractive, either.

I'm beginning to realize that I'd rather do something else with my science skills than do research as a professor. Management and consulting are appealing. I'm glad to be thinking about this now so I can keep my eyes open for alternative jobs because they are difficult to envision. When academia is almost the only path offered to Ph.Ds, it takes some thinking outside the box to find something else. However, I very much want to do a post doc because I want to learn something new and experience a different lab. I think a braoder skill-set would be beneficial for any kind of science job.

A few minutes after we finsihed our conversation, I asked Research Advisor if she thought less of me for saying I don't aspire to be a professor. She does not and pointed out that many people start PhDs with no intention of doing research. She said if it's okay for them to want to teach from the outset, it's fine for me to want to not teach. She's great.

Don't spare me

Some things are hard to learn in grad school. The things we are trained to do during grad school, specifically research, are not the only responsibilities we are likely to have in the jobs we get after grad school. The most general observation I can offer is that I work mostly in the lab while my advisors work mostly at their desks. We are clearly not doing the same things.

The most obvious way to learn about all the administrative work that goes into running a lab is to ask one's advisor. But it doesn't always work. Once when I asked about funding, I was told I "didn't need to worry about it". I think my advisor was feeling stressed about the level of funding he had and how to distribute it. It irritated me though, because how are students supposed to learn things like how to manage a lab's finances when no one will disscuss it because they don't want to disclose any worries?

This is a rather isolated example, as Academic Advisor really explains a lot of what goes in the department, the politics of our field, etc. Certainly Research Advisor seems to tell me pretty much anything (everything?), but it's a little different with her because I'm the only student in her lab, so there isn't such a structured hierarchy. They both encourage me to go to meetings, introduce me to visiting scientists, discuss proposal ideas, and whatever else. Overall, my advisors rock. But I know that most students struggle with this stuff, perhaps not even knowing what they're missing. It must be especially difficult for students in really big labs with famous advisors who travel frequently. But the trade-off is the association they get with a flashy name.

Mrswhatsit has a couple of really great posts on this topic.

On one hand, I appreciate being sheltered from the nasty or not-fun parts of science. On the other, I want to learn how to deal with it all. At the very least, I want to know what I'm getting into. I want to be ableto make an informed decision about what kind of carrer to try for when it's time to apply for jobs.

Student vs. Employee Part 1: Compensation

If I’m an employee, I am laughably undercompensated. If I am a student, then my university is a bunch of suckers for giving me so much money to get this degree.

I think I’m somewhere in between student and employee, but much closer to employee. Research Advisor has funding for my thesis project, so if I weren’t doing it she’d have to hire a technician at a much higher rate to get the work done. I am lucky enough to have an outside fellowship, so neither she nor my university have to pay me (well, my university department supplements my stipend a little). If I didn’t have that funding, I would have to TA for my salary stipend. Teaching assistants play a major role in universities like mine, covering most lab and even some lecture sessions for so much less pay than faculty. In that sense, they fall into the laughably undercompensated category.

For those students with a tuition waiver, the value of tuition can be considered a big contribution to their compensation. That means a student at a private university gets compensated dramatically more than one at a public institution, even if their salaries stipends are the same. It probably doesn’t feel like more pay to the person who gets a waiver for expensive tuition.

In the end, I feel that grad school is a luxury. I am very lucky to become so highly educated, that there are opportunities for me to do such interesting work, and that I don’t have to spend my time on nothing but food acquisition. But I’ll be happy when grad school is over, both because I’m tired of its obligations and I want more pay.


It seems like the grad student's real position is a perennial issue. Posts like this made me want to write about it too, although more explicitly. More to come.

Dream Jobs

Yesterday was a busy but fun day. We went to two dinner parties (one was at lunch time) and played Cranium at both. What fun.

Anyway, one of the parties was hosted by someone from my boyfriend’s work. Recall that he is also a grad student in a related field, so all but one person at this dinner was in science. We got to talking about dream jobs. Everyone was shocked when this one man who is a superstar young PI said that if he could do anything at all he would be a fiction writer. We were all like, so write! Why don’t you just write in your free time? He said that he didn’t think he could be successful, that there are so very, very many aspiring writers and so few who are prosperous novelists or screenwriters. I thought it was so interesting that this guy who has a very good career at a very well respected institution would be turned off by a profession because it is too competitive. Aren’t we all saying that science is too competitive all the time?

For the record, my top five dream jobs are, in no particular order:

• Broadway dancer
• Voiceover actor
• Synchronized swimmer
• Scientist
• Financial advisor

I also have a list of realistic Plan B dream jobs in case I can’t get or don’t want a job as a research scientist when the time comes. But those won’t get identified on this blog. :)

Passion or lack thereof

My boyfriend and I were talking about our relative passion for our work. He is a grad student in the same department as me but we are in different (sub)fields. I expressed my concern that because I am not consumed with desire for my research, I may not be so successful in a research career. I often envy how motivated he is; he is deeply driven, almost obsessed with wanting to understand everything possible about his subject. He kind of surprised me today by saying that this is partly because he feels like he has to justify the importance of his work. The value and necessity of my research area is obvious, while he feels he must constantly explain why taxpayer money should pay for what he does. He feels he must work inexhaustibly to find material that is broadly interesting (i.e., beyond a handful of specialists). This also means there are fewer jobs for people like him because there’s less money for what he does. He feels like he has to be a rock star because there’s so much competition for those few jobs. I worry about getting a job too, but it’s true that there are more positions in my field than his. I’m not sure if there are more newly minted PhDs each year though. The competition is probably worse for him.