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.