All three

I was talking with an older professor the other day about I'm concerned for my student's lack of data. Not entirely true - lack of extremely compelling/exciting/novel data. But I'm getting off track.

Anyway, he said that it is very rare to have all three: students, money and data. He said that usually it took two out of the three to get the third, and by the time you were close to getting the third, one of the other two was vanishing (ie, in my case, the student was graduating or the money was running out). He mentioned this was the most common reason that profs ended up keeping students longer than necessary or paid them far to low...

This made me start thinking back over my graduate career - evaluate a couple cases, and I realized he was completely correct.

However, this didn't really make me feel any better about my current situation. Basically, my only option to get data is to hire more students than I have funding for, essentially unbalance the students/money/data ratio.

I'm not very happy about this. It seems very irresponsible.

I'm going to try an experiment - supplement with undergrads. This may work or be an utter and complete failure. Undergrads do distract the graduate students from performing at 100%. But, managed properly, an undergrad can produce quality results. It really depends on the graduate student (and the undergraduate).

3rd year review

The third year review. Whose crappy idea was this. It seems like a good concept. The asst prof gets feedback in an official sort of way - a mock 6th yr review. Like a practice thesis defense.

Except it really isn't.

I have to prepare my "packet" for my third yr review at the end of my second yr. If I was a theorist or someone who did simulations, maybe this would be okay - maybe I would have a paper in review right now. Maybe my students would have produced something novel worth submitting to a decent journal.

I'm an experimentalist. I work with theorists AFTER I (or my grad students) have data. Which means I (my grad students) have to have a working experiment or at least have preliminary data before we could even consider doing some kind of "quick and dirty" theory thing. This means that I have to have grad students who are completely functional. And experiments take time. Some never work.

I could be one of those asst profs who just shoves the grad students out of the way, takes the data, writes the paper, and leaves the students completely clueless about a paper that has their name as the first author. I refuse to take this tactic.

My students will understand every aspect of their PhD research. However, this takes time. There is a ramp-up period. I understand this. I will not be a bad advisor and inflict permanent mental trauma on my students simply to appease some completely asinine rule.

I spoke with my mentor about this. His response was that he got tenure with no published papers or awarded grants. That would not happen now, so it really was a pointless conversation.

Maybe, someday, this will change to a 4th or 5th year review which would really be better for everyone involved. I mean, I didn't practice my thesis defense or my job talk in my first year of grad school...

Takes a village

I may have mentioned last summer that despite the fact that I was new, I had been assigned an equally new staff person to handle all of my stuff (grant applications, purchases, etc). At this point, I told my assigned mentor that this was probably not a good idea. The blind leading the blind concept. But it continued. Problems ensued - grants getting bounced because things were done wrong. POs not getting paid. Students (and me) not getting paid. Essentially, chaos.

Obviously, I don't want any of these things to happen. And obviously, the staff person is not just assigned to me - she is assigned to a group of profs. While she has made some of these mistakes with the other professors, they have also caught many of the mistakes in time, and rectified them (grant-related mistakes). I haven't been as lucky.

So, now it is May. This has gone on for almost one year. The other professors are looking for the person's head on a plate. I just want to be re-assigned to a more senior person - which may sound like the same thing, but it really isn't. I don't think the person is malicious, I think they just need more time. Granted, the job isn't that difficult and they do seem rather lazy, but at the same time...

Anyway, the point was just to emphasize that your staff is crucial. Just as your grad students and post docs are crucial, your admins and budget analysts and grants and contracts people are just as important. I'm hoping that this whole situation is going to be rectified soon - the head of HR is now involved, so my chair and assigned mentor (who in reality is really powerless) have pretty much been taken out of the equation.

The other profs have been really good about leaving me out of this. They have focused on their issues, which are more than sufficient to get a new person in, without dragging me into this. They are all full profs, so they don't have anything to lose by making a big stink. I obviously do.

I think one reason why there has been such a delay moving forward, at least in the department, is that she was hired by the chair - not transferred into the dept from another dept. So, if she is proven to be ineffective, it falls on our chair. This would be a sign that he made a mistake. Who wants to admit that?

To post doc or Not to post doc

I have lately been on numerous panels. Work life balance. How to get a faculty position. How to prepare a successful packet. How to succeed in a faculty position.

(BTW: The last is my personal favorite - I've been doing this under 1 yr. What do I know about succeeding. I think I asked the other panel members as many questions as the audience asked. I had an advantage - I was sitting next to them.)

However one panel which I haven't been on officially (because there isn't a panel dedicated to it), but which basically becomes a discussion at every other panel is: should you post doc or not. This is a complex question, which is really dependent on the individual. So, I've compiled a short list. This was compiled this morning during a phone conversation, but it was compiled none the less.

Positives (+)/Negatives (-)
+ you need rec letters b/c: a) you didn't work with enough people during your PhD to get 3 "solid" letters for a faculty application, b) you and your thesis advisor hate each other (happens frequently)
+/- you need more publications: this isn't necessarily a good reason, the bar goes up the longer you work, and it necessarily guaranteed that you will get publications
+ need to expand your network
+ want to change fields: plan to do at least a 3yr post-doc
+ you need more skills: this is a valid reason, but don't screw your post doc advisor over - ie only post doc for 1 yr. You cost your post doc advisor a lot of money. Even if you have a fellowship.
+ you and your significant other need to match up (time line wise)
- everyone else post-docs: not true (except in bio/chem/physics/math)
- can't decide between industry and academia: post-doc'ing isn't really going to help in that decision

So, in the end, I don't really have any advice - unless it has to do with rec letters or research field.

But, just the same, everyone keeps asking me for my advice. No one asked me last year. It isn't as though the day I became a prof I was handed the magic book that had all of the secrets to the prof universe.

MIA

Yep - I have been totally MIA for the past several months.

I taught my first course - which was total chaos - but really enjoyed it. I haven't gotten my evaluations back yet, so here's hoping. I may not enjoy it so much in a couple months when they roll in.

Other than that not too much to report - I've gotten a couple grants, which has been...
Awesome...Unexpected...Overwhelming...Thrilling...Exciting...Scary...

Yes, all of the above. Even scary. No one mentions that once you get a grant, you actually have to do the work. This implies hiring more grad students/post docs. Which implies growing your research group. Everyone focuses so much on the difficulty of getting grants, no one warns you what happens post-grant getting.

As such, my group is growing way faster than I had planned. I'm almost in double digits. Counting undergrads, I'm well in the double digits. I have to appear calm and confident to everyone, all of the time. Simultaneously, my mood is alternating between " oh shit, oh shit, oh shit" and "I'm so awesome". The swings are much, much worse than anything I have ever experienced. A some point it will all blur together into some nice balance of "I'm the shit", but that hasn't happened yet.

Anyway, everyone, good luck.

Number of Grants

So, FSP wrote a post about the appropriate number of grants to file. And she put it as 5-6 a year. As I have had 5 grants denied in the last 2 months alone - and I'll get to this in a minute - I have to disagree. I'm going to go with the number of "as many as is humanly possible to file and still do a reasonably good job". This number will of course vary with your teaching load and how fast you can write.

Also, the number of relevant announcements ebbs and flows - in the summer/early fall, there were more announcements than there were in November, and right now I'm in an upswing again. But, again, I'm not about to not-submit just so I can get some sleep. But, I'm not going to waste my time submitting to a not-relevant announcement either.

So, about the 5 rejections. 3 were for NSF grants. I've officially been rejected from NSF. I'm not really all that upset, which is kind of funny. I got a couple "goods" and a couple "excellents", but apparently, you have to get all "excellents" to get funded. As I was never a straight A student, except for one semester in second grade, I really don't see this happening. Maybe this is my being pessimistic, but it just seems like (probabilistically) it isn't going to happen - 5 reviewers all thinking "she's excellent!". Not likely. And I didn't really get any useful feedback saying what I could do next time. Maybe I won't be submitting to NSF again anytime soon...

The other two rejections - one was a Young Investigator and one was an NIH. NIH - they said what I could do next time - focus on a specific disease. And the YI - well, those are beauty contests, basically.

So, right now, I'm working on three different ones, all due in January. I was working on two, which is a kind of comfortable number. But then a program manager called and asked me to submit. This normally wouldn't be a problem - adding one - but this one happens to be a group submission (me plus a couple other people). So I had to pull together a team. Again, normally not a big deal - but the holidays change things. Everything becomes choatic.

It isn't us (the PIs) who are the problem. It is the budget and admin people. We have to get budgets approved, which means we have to get our budgets approved. And apparently pulling together a budget is akin to balancing the federal budget. So, my other two have been put on hold (as I'm the only PI on those), and now I'm working on forcing this larger one through the budget people. And there is cost-sharing involved.

Well, Happy Holidays to everyone.

Roller Coaster...

Friday was an incredible exhausting day. It started out in neutral, so to speak. I had to call a bunch of granting agencies/foundations and leave messages/speak with assistants to arrange phone calls with program managers for next week. I managed to successfully orchestrate that, so I was pretty proud of myself.

I was chairing a student symposium for the department which was from 10am-3pm, and there were industry judges and both an oral and poster session. So, at 9:30, I left my office and went over to the hall where it was. (Note, extensive planning had been done in the weeks leading up to this to enable me to just "show up"). I brought the judge's gifts with me (and they were awesome, by the way). So, from 10-3, I got to meet with undergraduate/graduate students, which I really enjoy, and learn about a lot of research going on in my department - which was also useful. And we had Halloween cupcakes. This was one of the admin assistant's ideas - which I strongly supported - and they were great.

Around 2:30, we announced the winners of the symposium (presentations and posters) and one of my students won the poster contest, which was awesome!

And, about 10 minutes later, I got an email from DARPA, saying that my grant (which I submitted in August) had been positively reviewed, and would now enter into contract negotiations - ie, I got a grant! I am planning a party for my group for next Friday.

At this point, I think it was a good thing I had on heels (which I never wear and therefore, they make me virtually immobile), because they kept me from jumping up and down and screaming.

After the whole symposium wound down, I went back to my office, and shot off a bunch of emails (namely to my post-doc advisors about the DARPA grant). Then my department chair called.

As back story: When I arrived, I had one person filing my grants (who was awesome). Then the chair hired a new person - who knows less than I do, if that is possible. I asked to keep the first person. (Let's call this person AP - for awesome person. We can call the second person CP - for crappy person.) Apparently, CP's job was to file grants for everyone in my building to let AP file grants for everyone in the other building. AP couldn't handle both buildings - which I completely believe. Therefore, I had to use CP.

AP has been doing this forever and would semi-proof read my grants - make sure I hadn't forgotten something obvious, like an equipment justification section, or make sure I wasn't asking for an obscene amount of money in comparison to other other grants recently awarded. This is stuff I didn't even think of (the latter) or know how to write (the former). Now that I know to do this, I will. But AP's experience is really helpful.

AP thought this was unfair (a new professor working with a new grants manager - essentially the blind leading the blind), and continued to file my grants. My chair found out, and got pissed. I requested to meet with him (in person) to discuss this next week. He opted to call - conference with everyone - at 5pm on Friday. Not surprisingly, it turned nasty. I'll just stop here.

Then at 5:30, I had a meeting with a professor in another department to discuss teaching - this professor has won lots of awards in teaching and volunteered to meet with anyone who wanted advice. He asked how my experience was going so far. I said it was okay. He asked how I liked my department administration. It was like he read my mind - bizarre. I pseudo-lied, and said I liked my division - I love my dean. And, as this prof is smart, he said what I couldn't say - that my chair is a grumpy ass, but his term is also limited. So, as long as I get along with the dean (whose term isn't limited), then I should focus on that, and somewhat ignore the chair (obviously not ignore - but keep my eyes on what is really important). We are meeting again next week to actually talk about teaching.

Well, a lot of other stuff is also going on, which is probably obvious as my blogging is getting more and more sporatic. But I felt like I needed to at least give a feeling for the rapid emotional roller coaster that occurs in a single day. The ups are much much higher, and the downs are much more pronounced than when I was a grad student or post doc. So the total swing is just more exhausting. I'm sure I'll develop a coping mechanism of some sort, but I'm just not sure what it is going to be or when it is going to kick in.

Grant writing

So, it is official. I suck at proposal writing. I got back my first set of "summary statements" from an NIH grant that I submitted. They basically said "go find a mentor - the science is solid, but your proposal is unintelligible, so we can't fund this piece of crap". Perhaps it was phrased a little better (in fact, the reviewers spent 5 pages reinforcing the concept of all the ways in which my proposal was unintelligible), but that was the gist.

They did give some helpful comments, which I will use in re-writing my proposal. And I knew that this one(s) was a piece of crap. I submitted three proposals in June to three different NIH sections on three different topics. I had never written an NIH proposal before, so I basically had no clue what I was doing. I wrote another one a month or so ago with another (much more senior) professor, and I learned a lot. However, based on the significant differences between that proposal and the ones I submitted in June, I could pretty much assume that none of those were going anywhere.

All of that being said... Waiting for these rejections was almost like waiting to go to the dentist and have your wisdom teeth pulled. You know what's coming, but it still sucks when it actually happens. Especially reading the 5 pages of comments saying things like "if you had only written more background information, then I would have recommended this for funding" and "the PI clearly has a strong track record in this field, therefore, while I believe she can successfully perform the research, she can not write proposals and therefore I can not recommend this for funding" and so forth...

In any case, the main thing I learned: put in as much background as humanly possible. This really showed in the reviews. Both with the specific comments about the lack of background information and the resulting confusion. Also make sure to use the phrase "As the PI has previously shown..." (or similar words) as many times as possible. And make sure the short paragraph in the grant itself about me (a semi-bio) is extremely flattering. These last two things I have problems with. I tend to have problems writing these types of things (especially the latter). I'm going to get my husband to do it. He has no problems. Also, it is easier to write complimentary statements about other people than it is about yourself.

And I wrote his resume last night.

Absent

So, I have spent the last 10 days in multiple cities and time zones and being uber-social. While my husband claims I am an extrovert, I say I'm just a really good actress. Oscar-worthy.

The first round was in DC with granting agencies and program managers trying to figure out what they really wanted. Their announcements say one thing, but what they really want to fund can be a little different. But finding out what they really want, can make a big difference. But it is a trip like any other: airplane, hotel, food, etc. All to get 30 minutes of face time with a program manager. After the first meeting, I've found that PM's are much more receptive to follow-up phone calls. But for initial contact, they really like meeting you.

Then I went onto a conference, gave a talk, got the typical "your talk was really impressive. I was really surprised." Um, not really sure how to take this. Now, I just say thanks, and walk away. I used to press the person to actually explain what they meant - try to make them feel uncomfortable and actually admit that they thought I was going to give a crappy talk because I'm short and female. Now, it just isn't worth the effort.

After that, I want to a "school" retreat. School = everyone in my "division", not the whole university/college. This was fun and stressful. Everyone was there, even the dean, and there were a lot of people I had never met before, so many names came at me very fast. And I'm really, really bad with names.

Then onto another conference. One more talk. Again, the "you gave a good talk and I'm surprised" comment. Yes, I know. I look like I'm 18. I'm not. One of these days, I'm just going to lose it. Let's just hope it is post-tenure.

But, now I'm back, and my students are extremely happy. I spent all of yesterday in the lab with them. And I'm hoping to spend part of this afternoon and all day tomorrow in the lab (if they are there tomorrow, it is their choice). But the lab is 99% done, and I want to have it completely done by Monday. I feel responsible for it not being done. If I had been here over the past 10 days or so, it would be done. So I feel really bad for delaying my student's research progress.

Oh, and I had three grants not go through and a young investigator award (YFA/YIA) not go through. Oh well. That's life. But I filed two more grants last week (they had the same due date), and next week I'll file at least one more, and another YFA/YIA.

Committees

I have now had many people ask me what it is exactly that I do all day. I can fairly confidently say that I spend a significant portion of my time in meetings. I enjoy the ones with students. The ones with professors - not so much. Especially with groups of professors (ie committees). And there seem to be lots of those.

These meetings appear to have no definitive end time. And sometimes no agenda is sent out (or formed) either. My parents always said a meeting must have an agenda - apparently that concept was lost on engineers. Without an agenda, the meeting meanders from topic to topic like a lost puppy.

In my department meetings, I am extremely fortunate. The room we meet in has a class immediate after (1 hr after the start of the meeting); therefore this is a limiting factor.

However, as an example of the topics covered in the last meeting: status reports from several seminar sub-committees on invites to speakers (speakers invited, dates being arranged), status report on faculty search (reading over CVs), random discussion over assorted yet unrelated topics. The first topics could have easily been reported via email; the second part (random discussion) didn't really need to happen - or at least it didn't really need to involve everyone.

One committee I'm on does everything 90% electronically. It is awesome. I can comment at midnight. And discussions end up being more focused.

The department seminar sub-committees (yes, I'm on these too) actually meet. Why, I have no idea. The meetings last for 45 minutes or so (again - what we talk about for this period of time, I really have yet to figure out - I tend to think of other things. But more importantly, the meetings have tended to take place in the middle of the afternoon, which completely disrupt an entire day. And they often are in a building far from mine. So a 45 minute meeting ends up lasting 1 hr, plus the additional disruption to my work.

In any case, one person commented on the 20% service requirement - this counts service. So, I easily am fulfilling my service requirement (committee work) - I also do other stuff. What is rather interesting is that as you do more research, you have to do more service (if you go by the percentage method). So you end up, in a sense, being penalized for doing research. But really, the percentages are guidelines anyway. The dept just wants to make sure you contribute.

40/40/20

For those who are at or considering an R1 university, you already know what the 40/40/20 rule is. For those who don't, 40/40/20 refers to how an Assistant professor is supposed to split their time: 40% research, 40% teaching, 20% service.

This seems very well-defined. It seems straightforward. It seems like, given these parameters, why doesn't everyone get tenure - just follow the 40/40/20 rule and you're golden. Well, it really doesn't work out that way.

Just as in grad school, the percentages don't really count. (in case you don't know to what I'm referring: if homework counts for 60% of the grade, and the final exam counts for 40%, it would appear that both homework and the final exam are important. However, since everyone gets 100% on all of the homeworks, really the only factor which plays a role in determining the final grade is the final exam, unless you completely blow off your homework.)

Everyone follows the 40/40/20 successfully (unless they are just completely clueless), just like everyone got 100% on the homework. Therefore, in the end, what really matters are the letters. Reference letters of sort. Letters from complete strangers (because, they aren't going to ask people who have a vested interest in seeing you do well - ie your thesis advisor, your post-doc advisor, your collaborators, etc). And, apparently, there will be something like 6 of these letters.

And they need to say things like "she would get tenure at my institution" and "she is the top of her field" and "she is amazing, fantastic, glorious, god-like". (Okay, maybe the last one was over the top).

Based upon my experience with strangers commenting on my work (ie journal referrees), I'm not too confident in this system. I have about a 50% track record of getting positive comments (and by positive, I mean good enough to get the manuscript published, not good enough to qualify in the "she is fantastic" column).

The one good thing about this system - my thesis advisor is automatically dis-allowed as a letter writer. Not really for the right reason (typically advisors would write an overly positive letter, when in reality he would write a negative one), but he is still excluded, which is the important thing.

My students are awesomer than yours...

I know everyone thinks their kids are the best. But as I don't have any kids yet, I think my graduate students (and my undergrad) are the best. Whether or not this is true, I have no idea, but I think they are. I am fully aware that I am biased. However, I have gotten confirmation that my undergrad is indeed awesome - she got an award. And, today, I got confirmation that one of my grad students is awesome - he won a fellowship.

His fellowship benefits both of us. I didn't fully appreciate this fact when I was a graduate student (by the way, I did not get a fellowship). I saw fellowships as mostly benefiting the student - after all, fellowship students make more than non-fellowship students. However, now that I am not paying my student 36k+overhead a year, I can buy more equipment, which is overhead free. So I basically get 60-ish% more for my money. (Yes, overhead is overly high).

And he is extremely happy with the extra money. He doesn't realize it yet, but he should be more happy with the title which will help him get a job in the future. And as he wants to go into academia, the more "honors and awards" one has, the better.

In any case, this particular grad student is exceptionally awesome. Every assistant professor should have a graduate student like him. He works on weekends, is extremely independently motivated, and never complains that something is "not science". For example, I worked with grad students as a post-doc that complained that writing software to analyze data was "not science". Taking data was science, but building the testing set-up to take the data or writing the software to analyze the data was "not science". Essentially, if it couldn't be plotted, the grad student didn't want to do it.

Anyway, my grad students are awesome. They have all dug in and helped build the fundamental backbone components of my lab. If only I could get them all fellowships.

Journals (pt 2)...

This post is in reference/follow-up to my previous post "Journals".

I heard back from the editor (yes, it took awhile), and he agreed with my assessment of the reviews and has accepted my manuscript!

Interestingly, I have read numerous blogs/articles discussing that men are more likely to argue with editors than females, and that females will more likely accept a rejection and"fade into night". This follows the trend discussed in the book "Women don't ask", in which the authors say that women are less likely to ask for things than men, and as such (in the long run) end up with less. Women essentially expect to be rewarded for good deeds, while men ask to be rewarded. I agree with much of this and have seen it in many of my female colleagues, but I have come to discover that it doesn't really apply to me. I'm not trying to sound arrogant - I actually don't think it applies to most females who went to an all-girls high school.

I think this is because women who attend all-girls high school learn at an early age to accept leadership roles, and they become comfortable in them. It doesn't seem strange for a girl to be the president of a club or of the class, because, by default, it will be a girl. Therefore, when these women go to college, they continue to pursue these leadership roles that they have grown to enjoy. And in these roles, they have to negotiate for things like funding, they have organize events and run meetings. Often undergraduate clubs have annual budgets of 5k or more, and a single event, if it is school wide (like a Mardi Gras party or orientation week), can have a much larger budget.

Then, in graduate school or as a faculty member, the budgets and the responsibilities get larger. Much, much larger. I just evaluated my annual burn rate.

After being responsible for organizing a large event or for orchestrating the construction of a lab, asking an editor to re-evaluate a decision on a paper seems pretty easy. Especially, if the decision was clearly incorrect.

Committee assignment

I have received my first committee assignment. And it came the same week that I have two grants due and that my lasers finally arrived. I would much rather be playing with my lasers. I have been waiting 4 months for them. Next on my list would be writing the grants - money will buy more lasers.

I downloaded the committee assignment last night - after glancing at it, I really don't want to do it now. The committee I'm on is the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee or some such lengthy title. Essentially, every time any department wants to change their curriculum, they have to ask us. That is the reality. The description of the committee was a little different. It said that we discussed how to change the undergrad curriculum to modernize it. As an undergrad and a grad student, I was involved in such discussions, and I really enjoyed seeing them implemented. So, I thought I would enjoy being part of a committee that was "progressive".

This committee - not progressive. It reads paperwork. The people who submit the paperwork - they are the progressive ones. The committee actually is anti-progressive.

So, as I said, my first assignment came last night. I have to read about 100 pages of proposed changes that another department wants to make to their curriculum. Not minor changes either - additions of about 5 classes, deletions of about 3 classes, addition of a minor and addition of an interdisciplinary minor. They grouped the whole thing together into a single submission, so I (and another committee member) have to evaluate it as a package. We can approve sections, but still, if they had submitted it in parts, then the work could be split up.

The entertaining part - until last night, I had never heard of this department or this major. I had to look up the discipline on the web to find out what the field was. I guess I have learned something already, though not exactly what I had intended to.

Undergraduate emails

It is the second or third or fourth week of the semester (I'm not teaching this semester, so I've kind of lost track), and my department holds a freshman seminar class to orient the freshman to the department. There is homework, but it is "orienting" homework. Apparently, last week's homework was to interview a faculty member to find out why they chose to be in science/engineering, why they chose academia, what they do, etc. They get two weeks.

I got a lot of emails (based on the size of the class), and I have determined that I got a statistically large number of emails - more than half. I know I got all of the females. But I also got a significant portion of the guys as well. If I was egotistical at all, I would say it was for appearance reasons - but I think it is because of laziness - my name falls near the beginning of the alphabet. The male profs who fall before me, well, I wouldn't want to interview them.

As I'm not in town right now, I clearly can't do these interviews this week. So, next week will be spent being interviewed by undergrads. I'm viewing as a two way interview - I would like to have some undergrad researchers in my group, so now I have the perfect chance to pre-screen and recruit early.

The undergrad school I went to didn't do this type of freshman seminar and I think it is a really good idea. I never interacted with faculty - except in my courses where they were the teacher. And those interactions were less than positive. And when I started undergrad I didn't even consider grad school, until I met a grad student who encouraged me. So, now I have a chance to meet with a bunch of undergrads and plant the seed early.

I realize that not every undergrad should go to grad school - I'm not that type of professor - but I also realize that not every undergrad is given the kind of encouragement they should be either. So now I have this chance. At least for ~50% of the class. Maybe I should change my last name to Aardvark to seal the deal.

(Now if they would just stop emailing me as Mrs. X, everything would be great... Maybe I'll suggest that can be included in the seminar as well - etiquette in communication)

International Traveling

I'm in Europe right now - I'm not calling Europe a single country, I'm just being vague.

I have been on this side of the Atlantic several times this year, every time in a different country. However, I always fly into the same airport first. This is simply because I have a favorite airline, which flies non-stop from where I live to one airport in Europe. It is my favorite for several reasons: 1) it gives me a 50% mileage bonus for free which is transferable to my FF club, so I get 150% of the miles (ie I don't have to join their FF club) , 2) they serve really good food, 3) the seats are all equipped with the mini-TVs which are uniquely controlled - ie the movies can be started and stopped whenever you choose. These may seem like small things, but they add up. Especially the movies - the only time I watch movies is when I am on planes - I view my airplane time as my time. It is really the only time I get alone without email interruption. Although right now I'm not getting many emails, as almost everyone I know is asleep.

And about the first point - I know many airlines have the joint membership programs, but very few give you the 50% mileage bonus. On ~20hrs of flying (roundtrip), it adds up.

But that wasn't the point. My favorite part about being in Europe is the coffee and the sandwiches. I realize this seems strange (maybe not the coffee part), but I really love prosciutto and brie sandwiches. If you have never had one, you are truly missing out. And they are everywhere over here - even in airports. Or at least so I thought.

I spent this morning trying to find the sandwich - no such luck. I didn't want it for breakfast, but I wanted to figure out where I would go for lunch. I found coffee (it was everywhere, par normal). I found Subway (bizarre) - and they only had the standard American selection. I found a lot of food I really didn't want to smell, let alone eat, at 6am. But I didn't find any stores which even looked like sandwich stores or bakeries (except the Subway). And there were alot of people having subway for breakfast, which I could understand given the alternative.

I'm quite disappointed to be honest. It is really how I motivate myself to get on the plane and travel for typically 12+ hrs to get here (including the secondary leg which can be a plane/train/bus/taxi), and travel far away from my husband, my cat and my dog. I love all of them very much, and while I love going to conferences and giving talks at schools/universities, I love being with them too.

I realize I came for the science not the food - and I'm sure the science will be great too. But I'm only here for 1 day. So, 1 day of science vs. 2 days of traveling... The prospect of getting the prosciutto really played a big role in my decision to come. And I know I can get prosciutto in the US (and in the airport), but I can't get the bread and the same quality Brie in the US. So, really, it just isn't the same.

But I'll stop now. I know there are much worse problems in the world - and even in the US. People in TX would love to have Subway for breakfast.

Ode to Campus Joy pt 2

So I thought about posting a comment on FSP's post today, but then I realized my comment would be far too long, so I decided I would just write the comment here.

When I started reading her post, I began thinking about my favorite aspect of my new campus, and it was, indeed, the marching band.

The past two schools I have attended have been without football teams - really sports programs - to speak of. Case in point - I played soccer in college. Not intramural. I had a school jersey and traveled and everything. I am not trying to convince you of my athletic prowess - I am not an athlete. I am far from an athlete. I am more saying how anyone could compete - I had friends (science friends) on the cross country team. Therefore, accompanying things, such as cheerleaders, marching bands, etc didn't exist.

On my current campus, athletics is big. Therefore, the marching band practices almost every day (from 6-8pm). In fact, my undergrad researcher is in the marching band. Everyday as I leave work, I hear the marching band practicing. I think it is awesome. It is almost like a pep rally everyday for the whole campus (and for me).

At the end of a long day (and at this point, a day is ~10-12 hrs), there is really nothing better than walking by the marching band playing happy music. It really lifts your spirits - after all, the music they play is designed to do just that.

Student seeking position

There have been many posts on many blogs about the correct way and the incorrect way to get into grad school, get a post-doc position and get an academic job. While I realize that the people who probably should be reading the present post, won't, maybe word will spread, and people will learn.

Things not to do:

don't send emails like:

Dear Prof. X,

I am a student at X university. I am interested in a research position in X field in your group this fall. My GRE/TOEFL scores are ###. Can I join your research group this fall?

Sincerely,
Interested student

Maybe not all professors, but I explicitly say on my web-page when I have openings and when I don't (right now I don't). And even if I did - it is fall! If you haven't already been admitted to the school, you aren't going to be starting now! You kind of missed the cycle.

Second, I don't admit students, the school does. Only after a student applies to the school should they bother contacting me. Yes - profs can pull strings, but if an application doesn't exist in the "system" there are no strings to pull.

Don't address the email to the wrong professor. This may seem obvious - but I actually got an email from a person looking for a post-doc position which was addressed to a different prof at a different school. Clearly, the wrong cover letter. It just starts things out on the wrong foot. And don't address "Dear sir/madam". Also annoying. I have a picture on my webpage. I'm clearly not a sir.

If you have applied to the school, and verified your application is in, then, yes, by all means, contact professors. In fact, I would encourage undergrads to contact profs in that tentative in between time after the app is submitted but before they have heard something. That is the crucial time.

If you get in, contact profs early (not once the school year has started), but in the spring, to inquire about openings for the next year. Especially if it is a prof with a popular group. I stopped taking new students in June, long before the start of the school year.

But don't send fishing emails before you have even applied. It is very annoying. I still respond. I know many profs who don't (which I think it rather rude - but then I only get 2-3/day, I'm sure they get many more).

Journals...

There is significant background, so please bear with me.

A friend (in a different lab) and I decided to try something (just for fun) once when I was in grad school - using my materials and his equipment. And it worked. My PhD advisor didn't believe/understand the results as he didn't understand the equipment, so he wouldn't let me publish. My friend's advisor thought it was awesome (and that my advisor was an idiot), but he let it go.

Fast forward two years.

Everyone has come to the realization that my advisor is an idiot (the other advisor was in a different department, so it took him some time, unlike my friend who was bombarded with daily stories). So, we decide to submit without my advisor. We choose Nature Materials - long shot, but if we haven't been scooped at this point, probably not going to happen.

Not surprisingly, we don't get in. Not really heart broken...

We choose another, more realistic journal - the reviews come back "this is great work, but it would really be more appropriate for X journal, but that is the Editor's decision". The Editor chooses to bounce it. That I was slightly more peeved about - especially as that submission was 3 months.

Now, third submission at highly specialized journal: 90days after submission, we get response (3 reviewers): 2 are extremely positive - say things like: " this work deserves to be published in an international journal like X". Third reviewer is an idiot. Really. He/she completely missed the point of the paper, compares it to irrelevant papers which focused on completely different topics, etc. The Editor rejects the paper. Um, what?

So, I email the journal directly (they didn't even give me a link to argue) with my "respectfully disagree" letter. That was a week ago - I still haven't heard anything.

Today, an article came out that is very, very similar. Not similar enough to keep ours from getting published (ie not the same). But it is similar enough to prove that we did submit to the right journal, our work is relevant to this community, etc. And it is also similar enough to make me think that one of the authors could have been one of the reviewers, either at this journal or the previous one. That would really make me peeved (and perhaps another word).

Anyway, sorry for the bitter post, but I'm just really frustrated... I know it won't be the last time, but did it have to be the first time (that I was submitting as the last author)?

Faculty Meeting (pt 1)

As I mentioned on Friday, I went to my first faculty meeting last week. Actually, it was double header - I went to both a dept faculty meeting and a university committee meeting, back to back. So, 4 hrs of "meeting", with a location change in between. I'll limit myself to the dept. faculty meeting for today.

I'm the secretary this year. Apparently, the new professor is always the secretary. I checked; this isn't some evil joke. I really, really hope they hire someone else this year (there is an active search), so I can stop taking notes next year. I have never been good at taking notes. I like listening too much.

Also, when I was an undergrad, I always used to think that profs would hang out after work and talk about us. When I became a grad student/post-doc, I realized that profs were way too busy to hang out and talk about us. I now realize that it was a little of both. They don't hang out and talk about us after work, they do it during faculty meetings! Maybe not specific students, more general - like, "what do you think happened to the sophomore class? I gave them the same test as I gave to the juniors last year, and they all failed it." As I'm not teaching, I can't really join in, but I was kind of taken aback.

The majority of the meeting was actually spent going over the plans for the semester (seminars, hiring etc), with one small exception when we talked about the tenure/review process. A lot of people would like to see it standardized (numerically), and many people are quite happy with the personal touch (namely, the ones with friends in high places). As I'm new, and have neither friends in admin nor any idea what the proposed numeric system is, I asked for information but didn't really say much. But, this did lead to the discussion of the general review process - namely, how we (profs) get reviewed every year, and students get reviewed every semester, but who reviews the staff?

Apparently, our chair! And he feels they are doing a great job! (Doesn't everyone? he asked). Um, no. So, we all asked to be included or asked for input when the next round of reviews were due. I have a feeling that this years reviews are going to be significantly different than the last decade of reviews.

And maybe our chair will finally realize he gets preferential treatment...