Unchosen

A reader asks the perennial painful questions about why others were interviewed for a tenure-track faculty position and not them, despite their PhD from an excellent university and their apparently better* publication record compared to some being interviewed. There are no satisfying answers to these questions, of course, mostly because there is so much variability in the process, but in case it helps to have one (more) person's perspective on this much-discussed topic, here are some of my current thoughts on the situation.

(*"better" could indicate quantity or quality: more publications or publications in journals with higher impact factors)

Here are the reader's hypotheses, sent in an e-mail to me, for discussion:

1) Doesn't matter how much you have published, they will only look for Nature or Science in your CV;

2) You must have a PhD from a fancy US university, maybe Oxford and Cambridge are accepted too;

3) You got to suggest something really similar (almost overlapping) to what the people are doing in the department, even if they say that the search is broad and open to any topic.

My responses:

1) There may be a kernel of truth to this, but the statement is too extreme (the part about nothing else mattering). Having a Nature/Science paper is typically seen as a very good thing if the candidate has apparently been a major player in the published research, but the absence of such a paper doesn't mean a candidate will not get an interview.

The likelihood of a Nature/Science (N/S) paper depends in part on the subfield (topic) of the research, so in some cases the absence of such a paper is meaningless. Even within a single search, if the search is broad, there will be candidates in subfields that at least have a chance of publishing in N/S, and others that probably do not.

I can say unambiguously that indicating in an application that a manuscript has been (or, worse, will soon be) "submitted" to Nature or Science does not impress.

In my department, we do look at number of publications and journal quality, but we have interviewed some candidates on the basis of a high level of interest in the research and our optimism that important papers would be forthcoming. Some non-interviewed candidates may have more publications than some of those we invite to interview; there are many factors other than number of publications and journal prestige.

2) Faculty with PhDs from the "fancy" US universities are very well represented in STEM departments at US universities, but "must" is too strong a word in this hypothesis. We do look closely at successful and highly recommended graduates of particular research groups, but such research groups can be found at a wide range of institutions in the US and beyond.

I have seen numerous examples of pedigree-worship over the years, as well as the syndrome in which it is assumed that all students of Famous Professors must somehow have absorbed their advisor's awesomeness and must therefore be highly creative individuals as well. I am definitely not alone, however, in being interested in searching broadly and looking at each application carefully to try to get a good sense for the individual's accomplishments and potential.

Even if you apply to a pedigree-worshiping department and you got your PhD at a "non-fancy" university, any disadvantage that this may cause in some searches can be overcome by doing a postdoc in a top research group (in the US or in another country) and/or by working with collaborators at top-ranked departments (especially if they will write strong letters for you).

3) I also don't agree with this one, at least not based on my own experience. You may have to work harder to explain why your research is interesting and significant if there is no one with closely related expertise in the department to which you are applying, but I have seen great interest in candidates who can explain convincingly why we might want to go in a new (for us) direction in a field in which we have advertised broadly.

So, why didn't you get an interview (yet)? I don't know. The individual who wrote to me has an extremely strong academic record and has put together an impressive application (though I would lose the "in prep" part of the CV, keeping "submitted/in review" manuscripts in a separate list from those published or in press). The research statement in particular is excellent. There is no obvious reason why this person would not be seriously considered for a tenure-track position at any research university that advertises in their field, other than that the field is crowded with excellent candidates.

In that case, it may well be that a high-profile paper in a high-impact journal would make a big difference (especially if other candidates have this, but you do not). Perhaps at this high level of accomplishment, anything you can do to stand slightly ahead of your excellent peers makes all the difference.

My only advice (of admittedly limited use) is to keep doing what you're doing: interesting research, publishing in high-quality journals, attending conferences, giving talks. Stay visible, meet people, network, collaborate. I hope your various advisors/mentors are helping you, and I hope something good happens for you soon.

Annoyance Avoidance

It comes as no surprise that (according to my unscientific poll) the two most-disliked questions that students ask professors are:

Did I miss anything (important)? and Is this going to be on the test? (and variation thereof)

And yet, clearly students want to know the answers to these questions. Is there a way for students to get the desired information and avoid annoying their instructor?

Probably not. At least, not without doing a bit of work first.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I highly recommend that students take whatever steps they possibly can to answer the first question on their own, and then approach their instructor with specific questions about the material. If a student comes to me and says "I missed class last Tuesday but I have read the relevant chapter in the textbook, looked at the review material you posted online, and read [my classmate's] notes that s/he took in class that day, and I just have a few questions..", I am totally happy to answer those questions.

For question #2 and its ilk ("Do we need to know...?"), a similar approach of asking specific questions about course material may be the way to go; that is, by asking substantive questions that show some thought. I realize that is not the same as asking whether something is on a test, but I think that a thoughtful approach to question-asking might result, in some cases, in the gleaning of information such as "I don't expect you to know that particular topic in that much detail" or "Yes, that's an extremely important topic". But again, some work (by the student) is required to get to that type of conversation.

As I was reading the comments and assembling the polls, it occurred to me that some of the items listed used to bother me more than they do now. Am I mellowing with age? In particular, I don't mind the "Is this going to be on the test?" question as much as I used to. It is a familiar and routine part of the teaching experience, and I am happy to roll with it and give a sincere answer, particularly to intro-level students (less so with majors). However, I have not yet achieved a happy coexistence with the first question, perhaps because that one bruises my delicate professorial ego and the second question does not.

In terms of the other items in the List of Annoyances, it is clear that the issue of greetings in e-mails and in person is a minefield. I think it would be very useful if new-student orientations provided guidance on this, as there is huge variation from institution to institution. There is also variation within institutions and we can't expect our intro-course (non-major) students to know the culture of our department/unit. It is probably a good idea, therefore, if students start with the most formal mode of greeting ("Dear Professor X" in e-mail; "Professor X" in conversation) and see if they can pick up on any clues whether it is OK to be more informal. It is probably always a bad idea to refer to men as "Professor" and women as "Mrs/Ms/Miss/firstname" by default.

Professors can also help with this: In the first day of class in my intro-level courses, I specifically discuss the topic of how I want to be addressed.

But now I would like to explore this topic of mellowing-with-age a bit more, not with a poll but just with a request for comments. If you have been teaching for at least a few years: as you survey the list of Annoying Questions (and maybe others not listed), think about whether your feelings about these questions have changed with time. This question does not apply to anyone who has never been annoyed by any of these questions, ever, but for the rest of us: has your annoyance level (whatever that is) decreased, increased, or stayed the same with time?

How To Annoy Your Professor : The Poll

Here it is: the poll based on your responses to my request for annoying questions and behaviors related to student-professor interaction. This was admittedly a one-sided request as it focuses entirely on annoying things students do. I have heard vague rumors that professors can also, from time to time, be annoying, but that is not relevant to our purpose here: to compile a handy list of advice for students to help them succeed in their academic life.

I was very gratified to find that others share my dislike of receiving 27 files all called homework.doc. I have found that if I instruct students about file-naming before the first homework is turned in, the majority of the submitted homework will have student names in the filenames, but if I don't mention it again before each and every homework due-date, the vast majority revert to homework.doc. 

Anyway, based on the comments provided, I have divided the poll into 3 categories: Annoying Questions, Communication, and Miscellaneous. I have not restricted voting to one item/poll, so you don't have to choose if you find some/all of the listed examples highly annoying. I suggest, though, that instead of just checking off all or most of the boxes, that we each attempt to pick our top-3(ish) from each category.

Annoying Questions
	Did I miss anything (important)?
	Will this course be hard?
	Is this going to be on the test?
	Do I need to read the (required) textbook?
	What can I do for extra credit?
	I overslept. When is my make-up exam?
	Can I have your lecture notes?
	Why did you give me a B? (or C etc.)
	Is this right? (before turning in HW or exam)
pollcode.com free polls

Communication
	Calling a professor Mr, Ms, Mrs, Miss
	Men addressed as Professor but not women
	Informal email greeting such as Hey, Hi, Prof (no name)
	Using first name for professor before being told this is OK
	Sending files without name in filename (or file)
	Email with bad spelling, grammar, punctuation etc.
	Emoticons
	Unsigned email (esp if name not clear from email address)
pollcode.com free polls

Misc
	I deserve a higher grade because..
	I put my homework in your mailbox. I don't know why you don't have it.
	Questions that could be answered by reading syllabus
	Entering professor's office without knocking and starting to talk (outside office hours)
	Unconvincing excuses for missed classes, exams, deadlines
	I need you to write me 17 letters of reference by the end of the week.
pollcode.com free polls

What Am I Missing Here?

This has surely been written about 57 million times before, but somehow it would be nice to get the message out to students about the perils of asking a professor the following question about a missed class:

Did I miss anything? or
Did I miss anything important?

How can we broadcast the information far and wide so that this question will never again be asked in this way? Is that asking for too much?

In fact, when my teenaged daughter heard her parents discussing this recently (we had both been asked this very question in this very way), she was a bit stunned, having asked a somewhat similar question of teachers in the past and intending no offense. Despite being the offspring of two parents who have infused her with secret professorial knowledge since the moment of her birth, she somehow escaped the knowledge that this question is considered offensive by sensitive professorial souls.

Her response, which is likely common to many students who ask this question sincerely, was: But sometimes my teachers don't say anything important during a class.

OK, understood. Ouch, but understood. But: if that is true, are you really going to get a useful answer out of aforementioned teacher if you ask them this question? So why not rearrange the words slightly, avoid causing offense, and maybe get some useful information?

So then we had an intense family discussion about how you should and should not ask that question. The difference between what a teacher might consider acceptable vs. not acceptable apparently seems subtle to some (students) even though others (teachers) think the distinction is obvious.

Examples:

Asking: What did I miss? = good*

Asking: Did I miss anything (important)? = bad

* Well, not really. By "good", I just mean 'not as offensive as the other statement'. This question at least assumes that something was missed. And yet, professors may not like this question because it is so open-ended. When asked this question, I tend to reply, "Did you look at the review materials that I posted after class? Did you read the relevant part of the textbook? Did you get notes from a classmate?" The answer is typically no, so then I say "I recommend that you do those things, and then I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the material." etc. This is just part of the normal day-to-day interaction of professors and students and is OK with me.

But anyway, back to my original question, which I hope you didn't miss: Do any universities/colleges include topics in their 1st-year student orientation sessions along the lines of 'how to communicate with professors' (writing and speaking)? This might be a way to give some helpful hints about such things.

What would these hints be? I am sure most professors could quickly come up with a list of their top 3 or 5 or 10 pet-peeves that are easily avoided. I wonder: can we collectively come up with a short list, or would it actually be a very long list (perhaps with conflicting ideas about dos and don'ts) because we are all such unique individuals with our own special eccentricities and so it is essentially impossible for students to avoid offending us? I don't know, but I think we should find out. So, if you are a teacher of some sort and want to participate in this important effort:

Leave a comment with your top-n list of annoying things that students make when communicating (in speaking or writing) with you.

Then, depending on the results, I will attempt to do a poll, and then we will know something, perhaps.

CVs : Windows into the Soul?

The results of the Fake-CV Contest are in.

I think we should call it a tie between Fake CV #2 (A. Lex) and #4 (Magical Robot Unicorn), with an impressive showing for Adolph H. Jones (#5). Thanks to all who participated in the vote and especially to those who submitted Fake CVs.

What have we learned? Anything? I think we already knew this: some CV pitfalls probably result from inexperience or no/bad mentoring and others represent a deliberate attempt to inflate a not-so-great record. The latter does not necessarily mean the CV-writer is a jerk. But it may indicate that.

A larger question is: Can a CV possibly be a reliable indication of who we are and one's ability to do creative, productive work, not to mention whether one possesses any relevant interpersonal skills?

Maybe, sort of for some things, but not for others.

For example, I think that most of us who read dozens/hundreds of CVs of various sorts in a typical academic year know that even the basic metrics of success can be misleading. More publications = better than fewer publications? Not necessarily. Are the papers in good journals? Was the individual in question the primary author (by whatever author-ordering scheme is the norm in that field) of most/some of the papers or an apparently minor co-author? Are these substantive papers or least-publishable units? And so on.

Those are 'knowable' things (just by looking at a CV). There are also unknowables (just by looking at a CV); for example, even if the individual was primary author on one or more papers, does that mean what it is supposed to mean? (the same could be asked of someone who is an apparently minor co-author).

Similar complexity may be involved in other classic CV components, such as # of invited talks, honors/awards, even grants. I have seen people list their advisor's grant in a category called "grants" on a CV. Does that mean the individual in question wrote the proposal or at least played a major role in the writing and development of the ideas? Perhaps. That certainly does happen and is worth noting. Or is this just the grant that supported them but they didn't help write the proposal or develop the ideas? I have seen that as well. These types of things need an explanation.

Of course, the CV is typically just one document among many in an application or nomination file and there are other ways to convey a more complete picture of an individual.

Nevertheless, one of my colleagues recently tried an experiment. He first read only the CV in each file in a large pile of applications and made a list of the "best" ones based only on his impression from the CVs. Then he read the complete files (statements, letters etc.) and found only a few cases in which his opinion changed relative to reading only the CV. [If that had been a real experiment, all names/places would have been removed so that first impressions (from the CV) wouldn't influence the second evaluation (from deeper reading of the file), but that's hard to do.]

What made a CV stand out in this case? From what I saw of his list, it wasn't prestige of the university or fame of the advisor, but mostly how interesting and significant the publications looked (from the title) to my colleague, and other publication-related factors (number of papers, number of primary-author publications, 'quality' of journal).

So, I think the CV does say a lot about us; these contain useful data. Are they a window into the soul? That is where I waffle and say: yes and no.....

Fake CV Contest : The Vote

It is indeed time to vote for your "favorite" CV (you can of course define "favorite" however you want: most entertaining, most bizarre, most horrifying, most illuminating...).

Here is an attempt at a recap of each Fake CV:

1 : Seward "Bo" Gritt III: manuscripts "in prep.", manuscript "submitted" to Nature (meaningless)

2 : A. Lex (Lutheran U): this one has an incredible number of "issues" and is difficult to summarize succinctly

3 :  Buster Bristhlewaite: quirky, not the typical "academic" CV

4 : Magical Robot Unicorn: the "perfect" candidate who is going to get the job for which you applied but won't get because you are not a magical robot unicorn

5 : Adolph H. Jones: unprofessional e-mail address, typos, sad list of "technical skills", disturbing content

6 : Robert "Bob" Smith: no first author publications (in field in which authorship is clearly not alphabetical), maybe some shingling..

7 : Dee S. Perate: thin publication list; one real publication hidden in list of "gray literature" to make list seem longer

VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE

Which Fake CV is your favorite (you can vote for more than one)
	1
	2
	3
	4
	5
	6
	7
pollcode.com free polls

Fake CV pre-vote

We are almost ready for the vote on your favorite Fake CV, but I just wanted to check and see if any major CV-issues have remained unexplored. There are submissions that I have not posted (apologies for that) but some would be repetitive with ones I posted already, and others didn't seem to be related to STEM-field CVs, the topic of this "contest".

Sorry for the anxieties these fake CVs may have caused anyone, but perhaps it is better to see some potential CV pitfalls in this way? In some cases, CV fails are because the applicant's record just isn't that great and the applicant tries, via creative CV formatting and organization, to hide some of the shortfalls. In other cases, however, what may well be a highly-qualified applicant undermines their application by the way they construct their CV. Example: when someone with a decent number of interesting publications in respectable journals hides these among non-equivalent types of "publications" just to make the publication list appear longer (see Fake CV#7). The hiring committee (or whatever) is unlikely to be fooled by this.

Perhaps we will vote tomorrow. In the meantime, please comment on any unexplored CV-fail issues or submit a last minute Fake CV to exemplify a useful and/or entertaining issue.

Fake CV #7

Another cautionary tale, writ in a CV:


DEE S. PERATE

Postdoctoral Fellow, 2008-present
PhD., 2008, Femtoscience, Genius Institute of Technology
B.S., 2001, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Math (quadruple major), Brilliant Institute of Technology

Publications

Perate, D.S., 2012, On being a femtoscientist. Brilliant Institute of Technology alumni bulletin, p. 15.

Perate, D.S., 2011, Whither femtoscience? Genius City Press (editorial, April 3, page D7).

Perate, D.S. and Advis, O.R., 2011, Femtoscientific analysis of a nanocomposite layered material with 3Rt structure and inverse polytypic vacancy switching. Journal of Femtoscientific Analysis, 22 (3), 345-361. (impact factor: 17)

Perate, D.S. and Advis, O.R., 2009, Femtoscientific analysis of a nanocomposite layered material with 3Rt structure and inverse polytypic vacancy switching. Abstract F354-32, "Less than Nano" annual conference, Danvers, Massachusetts.

Perate, D.S., 2008, Femtoscientific analysis of a nanocomposite layered material with 3Rt structure and inverse polytypic vacancy switching. Ph.D. thesis, Genius Institute of Technology, 289 p. (with Appendix).

Fake CV #6

This (partial?) CV contains at least two possibly-puzzling elements one may encounter in publication lists. Depending on the (sub)field, these elements may be complete non-issues (may even be the norm) or may be Red Flags.


Robert "Bob" R. Smith

Science Department
Science University
Scienceville, SC
USA

Employment History

Postdoctoral Research Associate, 2010-present, Science Department/University

Education History

PhD, 2010, Science, Department of Science, University of Science and Engineering
B.S., 2005, Science, Department of Science, Other University of Science and Engineering

Publications

A.X. White, T.R. Green, B.C. Black, K.E. Pink, R.R. Smith, N.I. Brown, V.C. Beige, and P.R. Taupe. The discovery of scientific evidence for some science things. J. Sci. Thi., v. 349, p. 12,345-12,399, 2012.

B.C. Black, A.X. White, T.R. Green, P.R. Taupe, K.E. Pink, R.R. Smith, N.I. Brown, and V.C. Beige. Scientific evidence for an engineered solution to some science questions in nature and experiment. Proc. Nat. Sci. and Eng. Stu., v. 1, p. 18-21, 2012.

R.W. Rabbit, H.F. Lizard, E.U. Dachshund, N.V. Worm, R.R. Smith, C.F. Sheepgoat, D.T. Rooster, and W.G. Dolphin. On the science of engineering, I. Theory. Trans. Theory Eng. Nat. Sci. Lett., v. 23, p. 556-572, 2011.

J.-P. Oak, D.D. Maple, C.V. Aspen, R.R. Smith, E.J. Birch, L.F. Pine, and E.S. Larch. Investigation of scientific results on a scientific experiment: implications for science. J. Exp. Sci. Res., v. 59, p. 47-95, 2011.

M.W. Cupcake, C.B. Brulee, W.D. Cheesecake, R.R. Smith, and V.B. Crumble. Evidence for scientific science in a vaccuum. J. Und. Sci. Res. Res., v. 16, p. 201-222, 2005.

Fake CV #5

OK, this one may be a bit off-putting at first, but if you read beyond the name, there are some informative aspects of it. The author of the fake CV explains:

The CV below is composed almost entirely from the pieces of dozens of real CVs of graduate students who have applied to work in my research group. (Some of these statements, such as the cheap Jew comment, were not actually on a CV, but were said to me by a candidate during the interview and I wrote it in my notes on his CV, so I think it counts too.)

ADOLF HITLER JONES
   
Email:  sexxyhotcrossdresser85@compuserve.net
Personal Website: http://www.adolfjones.xxx   

KEY STRENGTHS
•    Critical thinking and sensitivity to numbers
•    Excellent ritten and oral communication skills
•    I can do anything I set my mind to if I know how to do it!

TECHNICAL SKILLS
•    Operating systems: DOS, Windows 3.x\95\98\ME\XP\Vista\7
•    Productivity: Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, Power Point, Visio, Access and Corel Word Perfect
•    Software: IE3D, MATLAB, LABVIEW, PSPICE, LATEX, WIRESHARK, VERILOG, HFSS, IE3D, ADS, CST, AUTOCAD
•    Technologies: BGP, DHCP, HTTP, FTP, TELNET, TCP, UDP, IPV4, IPV6, CISCO IOS, OSPF, STP, VLAN, VTP, NAT, EIGRP, 3G, UMTS, CDMA, WCDMA, GPRS, GSM, WiMAX, VoIP, LTE, 802.11 WLAN, WAN, OFDM

EDUCATION
•    2006 – 2010 – B.Sc. in Computer Engineering, Small Liberal Arts College, GPA 2.6/4.0. However I got serious as a senior and my GPA in my final year was a 3.2

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
•    September 2012 – Independent Research on the employment situation of engineering students
•    June 2010 to August 2011 – I worked as a web developer for The Local Art Gallery, however I was let go because my employer did not want to pay my salary anymore (he was Jewish and you know how cheap they are….)

AWARDS AND HONORS
•    Second prize Badminton tournament at college sports fest
•    Won the “Best Out Going Student” of the year award
•    “Star Volunteer” of the 2010 Local Small Town World Expo
•    “The University Scholarship” – I got this prize because I was in the top 30% of the 16 students in the computer science major in my university

OTHER ACTIVITIES
•    Successfully completed a workshop in ‘ROBOTICS’
•    Currently writing a novel about teenage vampires
•    Coordination engineer of “ABHHIYANTHRIKI ‘08”
•    Negotiated with school cafeteria manager to make them depress the unreasonable food price

Fake CV #4

This is a very interesting fake CV, in part because of the reasons why it was created. Says the author:

I decided to .. make the CV of the mythical wunderkind I imagine is the dream candidate in the applicant pool of whatever it is for which I'm humbly supplicating. It's basically an impossible exaggeration of actual people I know that I think of when I am applying for something.

Interesting!

Also of note is the series of comments at the bottom, annotations from a fake search-committee:

Dr. Magical Robot Unicorn

Dept of Science

University of Fame and Awesomeness

1234 Mt. Olympus, State, USA

Education

2011-present: University of Fame and Awesome, Postdoctoral Fellowship of Awesomeness

2008-2011: Possibly Even More Amazing University, PhD

2006-2008: Insanely Eminent University, B.Sc., Summa Cum Laude 

References

* Prof. Progenitor oftheField 

* Prof. Future Nobelaureate  

* Dr. Director oftheNIH

Grants and awards

* MacArthur Fellow

* Giant NIH Grant, co-PI 

* Best Speaker Ever, TED 

* Most Beloved Teacher, Possibly Even More Amazing University

* Top Dissertation, awarded by Important Professional Science Organization 

* Best Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Insanely Eminent University 

* Gordon E Moore Award, Intel International Science and Engineering Fair

Selected Publications

* Unicorn, M.F. (in press). Pulling off the paradigm-shifting experiment everyone thought was impossible. Nature.

* Unicorn, M.F., OtherPerson, Other Person, & Nobelaureate, F. (2012). Inventing the breakthrough technique that will drive science for the next 100 years. Science. 

* Unicorn, M.F., & oftheField, P. (2011). An elegant unified theory of everything. PNAS. 

* Unicorn, M.F. (2010). An article that finally makes an important body of scientific work accessible to anyone. Scientific American.  

Annotations made by Search Committee Chair: 

 

* Education: note the impeccable pedigree and insanely efficient graduation dates which clearly mark Dr. Unicorn as a wunderkind

 

* References: the holy trinity of letter of reference writers -- (1) the living legend who founded the subfield we have been dying to hire in, did I mention Dr. Unicorn was his very last advisee? (2) the current hot stuff so you know Dr. Unicorn is part of the bleeding edge, and insists Unicorn was really the one responsible for the work everyone knows will be nominated for the Nobel one day, (3) person of important position who happens to be a close personal friend -- did you know Dr. Unicorn has also been raising her 2 beautiful children without a nanny and with no discernible impact to her professional productivity and famously charming collegiality?  

 

* Publications: demonstrates uncanny chops in all domains -- popular science writing, theory, engineering, and experimentation

 

* The awards, letter and writing samples let you know this person will kick ass in interviews and be a great colleague 

 

* Result: let's get real people -- do we even need to look at any other applicants?

Fake CV#3

This one is from EuropeanFemaleScienceProfessor. Apparently most of it is based on a real CV, with the exception of the duck thing.

Note that it is not too late to send your own submission, especially if you have been inspired by the ones posted already.

Dr. Buster Bristhlewaite                                                    (Picture of Dr. Bristhlewaite
Merrygo Lane 13                                                                   in a swimsuit holding his son
Podunk, New York, 12345                                                   and a plastic beach ball)
Fon: (202) 123-4567
Fax: (202) 123-4578
Fan: DrBuster@anythinggoes.com

I am 6^2 years old, happily married and have a wonderful 4-year-old son. I am very good at teaching people how to pass standardized tests.

Current positions:

• ·      Adjunct professor, Mathematics, Programming, and Duck Husbandry at Massive Online University, since 2008
• ·      Tutor, Mathematics, PassThatSAT, since 2007
• ·      Tutor, Mathematics, MyMathBuddy, since 2007
• ·      Duck farmer, since my Daddy died in 1998. I was born and raised on the farm.
•  

Previous positions:

• ·      Feed salesman, 1996-1997
• ·      Insurance salesman, 1998
• ·      Taxi Driver, 1998-2008
• ·      Substitute Math Teacher, Trumansburg Elementary School,1992-1994
•  

Education:

• ·      Trumansburg Elementary School  1980-1986
• ·      Charles O. Dickerson High School, Class of ‘92
• ·      Ithaca Community College 1992-1994
• ·      Cornell 1994-1996, Bachelor’s Degree in Mathematics
• ·      Columbus University, 1996-1997, Master’s Degree in Information Systems
• ·      Tri-Valley University, 2002, Doctorate in Applied Mathematics
•  

Hobbies:

I enjoy swimming, watching football on TV, and spending time with my family and my ducks.

Enclosures:

• ·      High school diploma
• ·      Bachelor’s and Master’s degree certificate
• ·      Copies of the business cards I printed up after I obtained my doctorate
• ·      Examples of the SAT training materials that I developed
• ·      Taxi Driver’s license
• ·      Evaluations from Massive Online University
• ·      Testimonials from students who passed the SAT with flying colors

Fake CV#2

Here's another one. If the author wants to claim authorship in a comment, they are of course welcome to do so. I should have mentioned that yesterday. Some people indicated this information with their submission, and some didn't.

This one clearly has a few Issues, and I don't mean the unconventional education history. Can you spot them?

Prof. A. Lex, Lutheran University

Education:

2001: PhD in physics, Phoenix State University

Thesis advisor: S. A. Ruman

Thesis title: Computation of the band structure of a 3-ring conjugated gold compound

1994: MA in physics, Phoenix State University

1989: BA in physics, UC Surf Board (minor in recreation studies)

1984: Associates of Arts Degree, Recreation Studies, Miami Beach Community College

Academic employment history:

2010-Present: Associate Professor of Physics, Lutheran University

2004-2010: Assistant Professor of Physics, Lutheran University

2001-2014: Postdoc, Asgard University (Mentor: Prof. Lo Quy)

1998-2001: Adjunct Lecturer (part-time), Arkham College

Publications:

1) Theoretical publications: Over 100 articles posted on vixra

Selected publications from peer-reviewed journals:

A. Lex et. al., Antarctic Journal of Theoretical Physics, "Density functional calculation of acoustic phonon dispersion in kryptonite", v. 13, pg. 666-669 (2009)

2) Experimental publications:

A. Lex, S. A. Ruman, Journal of Astrological Optics, "Laboratory detection of a 1.0 solar mass star in vicinity of earth", v. 48, p. 1516-1523 (2001)

*Paper retracted when an error was discovered in the filters used to block stray light from the windows.

3) Additional Publications (not peer-reviewed):

A. Lex, "Unclogging the PhD pipeline: Lessons from one mentor's experience", Annals of Improbable Research, v. 42, p. 13 (2011)

Teaching award:

- Most-improved Teaching Assistant, Phoenix State University (1996)

Mentoring accomplishments:

-Of 9 grad students supervised, all 9 have left with a Master's

Committee service (selected):

2010: University Committee on Faculty Conduct

-In collaboration with a faculty member from the law school, I helped the committee parse the difference between "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of evidence."

2008: Department Budget Committee

-As a result of my efforts, the university has initiated twice-annual audits of the Department's finances

2005: FEMA Science Advisory Committee (member)

Fake CV #1

Here is the first example submitted for the Fake CV Attempt-At-Academic-Humor thing. I typically try to come up with names for the title (something more interesting than "Fake CV #1), but I thought maybe you -- the readers -- would have some illustrative suggestions for this. For each CV, consider leaving a comment that captures the essence of that CV.

Note that I do not necessarily agree with the philosophy and attempt-at-humor in each CV that I will post, but I do appreciate the efforts of those who have submitted fake CVs. Some of the CVs are a bit surprising considering that the senders note that many/most elements of the CVs have been observed in real CVs. Food for thought. 

Has anyone seen anything like this submitted for an academic position before?

SEWARD "Bo" GRITT III

Dept of Science
University of Here
43 Campus Road
Campustown STATE USA
e-mail: sewbogritt3@uofhere.edu

Education

PhD 2010 Science
University of There
Dissertation title: "Further analysis of some things my advisor analyzed 10 years ago"
Advisor: Associate Professor JJ Tasker

BS 2005 Science
Summa cum laude
The College

Academic Employment 

Postdoctoral Research Associate, 2010-present
University of Here

Fall quarter, 2007, Teaching Assistant "Introduction to Scientific Concepts"

Recent Academic Honors and Awards

Zippy D. DooDah Award for "Best Dissertation Title", 2010, University of There

Science Geek of the Year Award, Dept of Science, The College, 2003-04 (declined)

Dean's List (4x)

Publications

Gritt, S., et al., Analytical results from materials analyzed, to be submitted to a high-impact journal (in prep.)

Gritt, S., et al., Chapter 4 of my dissertation, to be submitted to a high-impact journal (in prep.)

Gritt, S., et al., Further analysis of analyzed materials. Nature (submitted)

Tasker, J.J., Gritt, S., et al., Additional analysis of materials previously analyzed. Science (submitted)

Gritt, S., Material analysis of materials analyzed. Journal of Specialized Material Analysis of Materials, v. 1 (3), p. 57-59.

Invited talks (pending)

Happy Birthday Merry Christmas

No, this is not another reflection on the perils and pleasures of having a birthday at this time of year; at least, not exactly. The topic did, however, come up recently in an unusual setting and somehow this led to another topic that is a rather common theme around here at the FSP blog, and I was kind of fascinated by that.

Below you will find a transcript (heavily edited for brevity, but faithfully recording the content) of a conversation I recently had as part of being "interviewed" by an official person at an airport re. the Security of the Homeland. I hope it doesn't shock anyone, but you will see below that I admit to lying (once) to this official person in this interview.

Man In Uniform (MIU): Your birthday is very close to the end of the year. That must have made your father happy, for tax purposes.

FSP: Yes. (That was my one lie: In fact, it was my mother who was happy about this; she handled all the family finances, did the taxes, and had labor induced a few days early, for tax purposes. I doubt if my father knew or cared about any of this, but I didn't see a reason to correct the MIU's assumption about my parents.)

MIU: Have we met before?

FSP: Not to my knowledge.

MIU: I think we might have met. A few weeks ago I met another female professor from your university. She works on [name of a research topic that a non-scientist might think is similar to what I do even though it's not].

FSP: No, that wasn't me. I work on X, and that's different from what that other professor works on.

MIU: Are you sure? Two lady professors from the same university, both scientists?

FSP (calmly): That wasn't me. There are more than two female science professors at my university.

MIU: I used to jump out of airplanes.

FSP: OK.

MIU: Have you ever changed your name?

FSP: No.

MIU: [long anecdote about a woman in his family who recently changed her name]. Have you ever plotted to overthrow the US government?

FSP: No.

The rest was kind of boring. Why had I traveled to Countries X, Y, and Z? What did I bring back? Who paid for my business travel? etc.

That's my Christmastime-birthday-gender-directed-weirdness anecdote. Happy Birthday Merry Christmas, and don't forget to send in your fake CV for the Academic Writing Contest of 2012.

The Annual End-of-Year Academic Writing Contest: 2012

For me, this winter break would not be festive without an End-of-Year Attempt-At-Humor Academic Writing Contest Of Some Sort. Oh sure, I can get in the holiday mood by walking into any store, cafe, or gas station and being subjected to a bewildering variety of renditions of the most appalling Christmas songs possible, I can (try to) put reindeer antlers on my most docile cat, and I can even decorate cookies in vile colors (Fig. 1),

but it just wouldn't be the same without an End-of-Year Attempt-At-Humor Academic Writing Contest of Some Sort.

To recap the last 4 contests:

• 2008: The Statement of Purpose;
• 2009: Letters of Reference;
• 2010: Why I Missed the Final Exam; and
• 2011: The Cover Letter for academic positions.

What now? Announcing: the CV (curriculum vitae/resume).

I know what you are (possibly) thinking: the CV? That is not writing.

And so I reply, if you are (possibly) thinking that: au contraire. I have learned in the past few months that even the smallest, shortest, fragmentary attempt to convey information in a visual way is "writing". I learned this in some "meetings".

But that's not why I have selected the CV as this year's writing theme. I selected the CV because I have been continually amazed over the years by the fact that it is possible to go so far astray with what is seemingly a simple document in which some biographical and other facts are arranged to describe a person's qualifications for a position. Even more amazing to me is the realization that it is possible for someone to create (what seems to me to be) an obnoxious CV; not in the nature of the facts but in how they are presented.

Readers who wish to participate: Your challenge is to create an entirely fictitious or at least heavily disguised CV that fulfills one or more of the following outcomes,

• entertainment;
• horror;
• mentoring;
• all of the above.

whilst not veering (too far) from the norms of the academic CV. In addition, it would be great if the fabricated CV is not too long.

I hasten to emphasize that submitted CVs should not humiliate any actual persons other than yourself. The purpose of this contest is to have fun, relieve end-of-term stress, and perhaps make a dramatic and useful point or three about potential CV pitfalls.

As always, parody -- subtle or savage -- is encouraged, although I realize (from e-mails I have received over the years) that these writing contests may generate some anxiety in those who are in the process of creating the very document that is being featured. I have therefore added "mentoring" as a possible outcome, even if the mentoring is done in an ungentle way.

Entries can be sent to femalescienceprofessor@gmail.com (do not send attachments) and will be reviewed by the FSP Editorial Board. I will be traveling in an unusual place throughout most of late December - early January, but I will post selected entries as internet access permits.

Entries will be accepted until the position is filled. Review of entries will begin on or soon after I start receiving them in the next week or two. Eventually there may be a vote on the Most Entertaining, Most Horrifying, and/or Most Useful Fake CV.

Mentor Bully

Not long ago, I attended a workshop that included a presentation on mentoring. The presentation was given by someone who had a lot of experience with mentoring students, postdocs, and other faculty, in training faculty to be mentors, and in training faculty to train other faculty to be mentors (etc.). You get the picture: this person was immersed in the theory and practice of mentoring and had been asked to share their experience with 'best practices' and advice about mentoring.

In particular, I was curious to learn whether and how peer institutions organize mentoring systems for assistant professors, and to share ideas with colleagues about postdoc mentoring plans (such as we submit with NSF proposals that include requests for postdoc salary). In fact, I got a lot out of talking to the other workshop participants about mentoring issues, even though we were not the "experts" on mentoring. It turns out many of us had similar questions and concerns.

What did we get from the "mentoring expert"? We got abrupt and patronizing comments, including responses like "no kidding", "that's obvious", and "that's wrong" (with no explanation for why it was wrong, just that it was not what the Mentor Expert does).

I wondered: perhaps this is yet another cautionary tale about what can happen when you become too expert in a topic, even a supposedly warm-and-fuzzy topic like mentoring. And this is what can happen when you try to convey your knowledge and experience in a text-laden Powerpoint presentation, and are not happy when questions and comments from the audience attempt to make you veer from your prepared (bullet) points.

Memo to me: try not to be like that if at all possible

Did I learn anything new about mentoring at this workshop? Not exactly, but it was still good to see what the range of possibilities are, for example, for mentoring systems for assistant professors:

• Should mentors be assigned or should they volunteer? There were surprisingly strong feelings about this.

• How many should each person have (1? 2? the entire department? different mentors for research and teaching?) 

• Should mentor and mentee meet a certain minimum number of times per term or per year or just leave it open and hope that conversations happen naturally? 

• What are the most essential roles of mentors? To answer questions or to be proactive about asking questions and giving advice? To read grant proposals and manuscripts before they are submitted?

• Should anything 'extra' be done for members of underrepresented groups, or would that be 'singling them out' in an unfair and possibly humiliating way?

If I had to guess in an unscientific way, I would say that most of the participants I talked to and whose departments have some sort of mentoring system would answer:

assigned, 1, once/term, all of the above, no on doing 'extra' mentoring for underrepresented groups

... and the mentoring expert would answer:

volunteer, entire department, conversations should happen naturally, whatever everyone has time for, yes on doing 'extra' mentoring for underrepresented groups