Tuesday, January 01, 2013

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?


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


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)


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)


Anonymous said...

I've definitely seen CVs with lots of papers listed, but when you look carefully you realize they are all either 'submitted' or 'in preparation.' Very douchy. As my PhD advisor used to say, "Anyone can *submit* something to Nature. Hell, my Grandma can submit to Nature..."

David Stern said...

Or no or few publications but ten "in preparation". This is common in economics

GMP said...

I am on a search committee right now and have seen several CVs like this, without papers actually unpublished. My suggestions for the title would be "Padded" or directly from the CV "to be submitted to a high-impact journal."

KK PhD said...

Haha, I giggled at the pending invited talks and "declined" science geek of the year award. It would sound so much more of an honor to say "nominated" if that were the case.

It's so hard to write a humorous version of your CV and not sound overly self-deprecating (I know, I tried).

I look forward to more fake CVs to inspire me to update my real one.

Anonymous said...

Title: "In prep"

Anonymous said...

I think it makes sense to list submitted papers if you also give a link to a preprint (say, on the arxiv.) "In preparation" always bothered me, but I was also told to do it, so I do it. But I don't say where I submitted or plan to submit these papers. My field is math.

Anonymous said...

Oh nooo... as I am a postdoc currently prepping two of my thesis chapters this is UNCOMFORTABLY CLOSE TO MY CV!

(I do actually have some other papers published but yeeeesh)

Anonymous said...

I have seen way too many versions of this CV to think it is funny. Slightly painful, yes, but not funny. At least it is short! Worse would be a CV with the same content, but stretched out to six or seven pages (which I've also seen).

EliRabett said...

Dump em into arXiv

Anonymous said...

haha, I would like to put a "like" on the "Oh nooo..." comment. No wonder I got a ton of rejections last year! Wish you had posted it then :-) ( Well on another note, I did get a good offer, so now worries.)

Anonymous said...

Just curious - I have been trying to publish a manuscript for some time. It is taking so long, because we submitted to a glamour mag, and are now working our way down the journal ranks. What if a paper was submitted, rejected, and being revised and prepared for re-submission elsewhere? I usually indicate "in preparation." Is there an alternative to the two descriptors "submitted" and "in prep". Or "trying to publish the motherfucker".

Anonymous said...

@Anon 7:58am "What if a paper was submitted, rejected, and being revised and prepared for re-submission elsewhere? I usually indicate "in preparation." Is there an alternative to the two descriptors "submitted" and "in prep". Or "trying to publish the motherfucker"."

This may vary from field to field, but in my field (NIH-funded biosciences) you are not supposed to put anything on your CV unless it is officially accepted. The NIH guidelines for biosketches say to not include anything as "submitted" or "in preparation", and it's generally accepted that you should also follow this rule for CVs. It sounds like from the comments that other fields have very different 'rules', though. In my field, in your situation the usual solution is if you are applying for a job, etc., you ask one of your letter writers to address this. They can say something about how they've seen this exciting manuscript that you recently submitted and they are confident that it will be published soon and will have an important impact on the field, etc...

Or, come to think of it, "trying to publish the motherfucker" is pretty appropriate as well. I might have to try that... :)

Anonymous said...

As a general rule, I never use "manuscript in preparation". That could mean anything and it just screams desperation. To me "to be submitted" sounds slightly better as it at least indicates that there's a story and all it needs is writing up.
The ONLY exception I could see for using them is when there is absolutely no other publication that person X could put on the CV and therefore this exception should only hold for very junior people (pre-grad school or the unlucky ones who through no fault of their own didn't manage to get a paper out yet). For anyone else: better left out.

"Submitted" is better but in my opinion should still be reserved for grant applications and not job applications. And never include the journal unless the paper is actually formally accepted or in press (at which point there's nothing wrong with referring to it as such).

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @7:58, I think the descriptor you are looking for is "repeatedly rejected".

agradstudent said...

I think the title should be "pending."

Davie Yoon said...

"aspirational" ?