Archive for the ‘Advice’ Category

Don’t Get Got (Like I Got Got)

I have been buying things, banking, booking reservations, and all sorts of other transactions on the Internet for 13 years now. I don’t know how many times I have given out my credit card number, and lots of other personal information, trusting that it would be respected. Until now, it always has been. Obviously Internet commerce has thrived, and formed an important part of our economy.

But, as our department’s computer support person said recently, “the road ahead is filled with marauders”. Heh. Not just the road ahead…

It all started last January when I was interested in getting a home equity line of credit to do our landscaping project this year. Some of the places I wanted to apply to a specified minimum credit scores - I wanted to know mine. So, I Googled “free credit report” and got a list. I confess I don’t remember which one I went to. I do remember though that in order to get my free credit report at a certain point I had to enter my credit card number and authorize a one dollar payment. I was very careful to not sign up for any of the subscriptions or services that kept popping up as I clicked my way to my free credit report.

Eventually, I did get my free credit report, my score was great, and a few weeks later and got a really great deal on a home equity line of credit.

(more…)

November 18th, 2008 by John in Advice, Miscellany | 14 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

A Quick Tip for Applying to Grad School

It’s usually not a good idea to have one of your parents call the department on your behalf.

And if you have the kind of parent who does this without your asking, you have my condolences.

October 23rd, 2008 by Julianne in Academia, Advice | 35 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

Unsolicited Advice VII: Should I Have a Web Page?

It’s September, and a young person’s fancy naturally turns to applying to grad school/postdocs/faculty jobs. And in this day and age, questions inevitably arise: Are they going to google me? What will they find? Followed immediately by: Should I have my own web page (if I don’t already)? And what should be on it?

Roughly speaking, as you climb up the academic ladder, the scrutiny one undergoes becomes increasingly close. If you are in high school and applying to colleges, I would be extremely surprised if any admissions committee googled you — there are just too many of you, frankly. Mostly this also holds for undergrads applying to grad school. At least, that’s the situation among theorists; for experimentalists, who might be joining a specific lab on day one, the number might be smaller and the individual attention correspondingly greater. By the time you apply for faculty jobs, the numbers are very small, and nobody gets an offer without being poked and prodded in person, and having their CV examined under a microscope. In that case, the web page is (almost) beside the point, as they’ve seen you up close and personal.

It’s for postdoc applications, then, that the googling question becomes most relevant. Remember that most research groups have relatively few postdocs, so they take the selection process very seriously — mistakes can be costly. But in many cases the decision-making timescale is sufficiently short that they don’t have the luxury of seeing each candidate in person. So I would say: yes, at many places where you apply for postdocs, they will be googling you to glean information that might not show up on a formal application. That is especially true if you’re applying to individual professors or groups (rather than wider-ranging fellowships), and also if the relevant decision-makers are younger.

So: if they do google you, what will they find? You can see how it might make sense to put up your own web page: that way you have some influence over their first impressions of you. There is a systematic issue, of course, that some names are more easily googleable than others, but we won’t address that here. If you do have a web page, you can simply include the URL in your CV, so they will have it in front of them.

If you do decide to have a web page, what should it look like? There is an overarching principle at work here: the Web is World-Wide. That is, everything you put on your page can be viewed (ordinarily) by everyone. You can’t put stuff up that “is only meant for your friends,” and then be surprised when it is examined by prospective employers. If you have pictures or stories that are in any way private — keep them private!

(more…)

September 16th, 2008 by Sean in Academia, Advice | 20 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

On Choosing a Graduate School: A Dialogue

A: Hey, what’s up? You’re looking a little anxious these days.

B: I know. We’re getting close to the romance deadline.

A: The romance deadline?

B: Yeah, in a couple of days I have to decide who I’ll be going out with for the next five years or so.

A: Oh, right, I forgot. Have you decided between boyfriend and girlfriend?

B: I’ve thought about it a lot, and I definitely want a girlfriend.

A: That’s cool. But don’t you worry that the standards are higher if you say you want a girlfriend? I’ve heard that boyfriends are much easier.

B: I heard that, too. But girls are what I’m really passionate about.

A: Couldn’t you just get a boyfriend first, and then switch if you don’t like it?

B: Some people try that, but it can be awkward. Better to just be honest about your intentions from the start.

A: Fair enough. So did you get any acceptances?

B: Yeah, two different women have agreed to date me. Cindy and Alyssa. But I have to choose one.

A: Hey, that’s great that you go two offers. Have you made a choice yet?

B: Well, I had coffee with Alyssa, and we really hit it off — she’s beautiful, and charming, and laughed at my jokes. I definitely think we would get along well over the next few years. I met Cindy, too; she’s a knockout, and clearly very talented, but there wasn’t as much of a spark there.

A: That can happen. So are you going to choose Alyssa?

B: I’m tempted, but the thing is — Cindy’s US News ranking is much higher.

A: Her what?

B: Every year, US News puts out rankings of boyfriends and girlfriends. Now, Alyssa is a solid top-20 girlfriend, but Cindy is top five! I’m really worried I’d be making a mistake by passing up the opportunity to go out with Cindy. Everyone has heard of her.

A: That sounds a little weird to me. How do they come up with these rankings?

B: Nobody knows, really. But everyone takes them very seriously. Still, I keep hoping that the NRC will update their boyfriend/girlfriend rankings soon. Those are supposed to be much more scientific.

A: NRC?

B: The National Romance Council.

A: But look, you seem to have really hit it off with Alyssa. Who cares that US News ranks Cindy higher? The concept of a “boyfriend/girlfriend ranking” just doesn’t make sense — what matters is how well you personally get along with them, not some pseudo-objective measure of excellence.

B: It’s easy to say that, but this is a big decision. I’m really worried that, ten years from now when I’m ready to get married, my prospective spouse is not going to be nearly as impressed that I went out with Alyssa than if I had gone out with Cindy.

A: Come on, it’s five years of your life that we’re talking about here. Your chances of eventually being happily married would seem to be a lot better if you choose someone you’re likely to be happy with right now.

B: You’re right, I know. Well, I hope Cindy won’t be disappointed. I don’t think she’s used to being turned down.

A: Don’t worry. I’m pretty sure she’ll get over it.

April 15th, 2008 by Sean in Academia, Advice | 33 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

Grad School Open Thread

Today is Grad School Recruitment Day at Caltech, from which I surmise that there must be dozens of readers of this blog who are currently puzzling over where they might want to spend the next years of their lives. And hundreds of readers who went through this puzzling at one point themselves, or will face it in the future. So, since “work” is preventing me from blogging very much, here is a place to share stories and questions; we’ve previously given advice, but you can never get too much. (Professors, did you know that these students are talking about you behind your back on the internet? A brave new world etc.)

My grad school story: I was an astronomy major at Villanova as an undergrad, but knew that I really wanted to do physics. Nobody in my department was really qualified to give advice about grad schools in theoretical high energy physics or cosmology, but there was a big book put out by the AIP that listed programs and the people working in each specialty; not sure if the book still exists, or whether it’s been replaced by a website. So I applied to five different places, all top-notch; got into three, waitlisted at one, and rejected at one. (I had a not-completely-unheard-of profile: small undergrad school, great letters, good but not perfect grades and GRE’s, vague and untutored desire to unify all of theoretical physics.) I wanted to stay on the East Coast for personal reasons (= “girlfriend”). Sadly, the school that rejected me (Princeton) and wait-listed me (Harvard) were the ones on the East Coast that I had applied to. So I visited Harvard myself to plead my case; to no avail, of course (I wouldn’t recommend doing this — it won’t work and can annoy people), but I was told that if I could get an outside fellowship they would accept me. And then I did get an outside fellowship, from the NSF; but Harvard still wouldn’t accept me. Apparently that was a bit of a tactic. So I called up the astronomy department and asked if they would let me in. They were a bit surprised that physics wouldn’t accept me, given that I was free, but happily took me on. Which explains why I have no degrees in physics, even though all of my subsequent employment has been in physics departments.

Did it matter that I went to an astronomy department rather than a physics department where my interests would have been a more natural fit? Absolutely — I hung out with people who chatted about redshifts in their spare time, not with people who chatted about Feynman diagrams, and that lack of immersion in a crucial subject has undoubtedly been a handicap. But I was generally in a good situation (you can’t really complain about being at Harvard), and I made the most of it — took many physics classes, spent time talking to professors, wrote papers with other students and mathematicians as well as my advisor, went to MIT and ended up collaborating with people there as well. If you go to someplace that is decent enough to offer opportunities, it will be up to you to take the initiative and make your time there a success.

March 28th, 2008 by Sean in Academia, Advice | 27 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

Unsolicited Advice, Part Six: Talking to the Media

It’s about the time of year when prospective graduate students are making one of the most important decisions of their lives: where to go to grad school. So we really should give some advice about that, but happily we already have! And it still seems pretty relevant. Meanwhile, today I’m at the KITP in Santa Barbara, speaking on a panel on The Perils and Pitfalls of Speaking to the Press. (One in a series organized by the KITP’s Journalist in Residence.) So I have to give a short talk about that, and thought I could take advantage of the opportunity by turning it into a blog post.

Sadly, I eventually realized that I do not have a Grand Unified Theory of interactions between scientists and journalists. It is a complicated relationship, in which there is much overlap in objectives on both sides, but also undeniably some tensions here and there. Consider the following two anecdotes:

  • My first direct interaction with the science press was as a grad student, when I was working with Edward Farhi and Alan Guth on whether it was possible to build a time machine out of cosmic strings (as proposed by Richard Gott). Our work was written up in Science News, and they did an extremely careful job — Ron Cowen interviewed us in depth, asked good questions, and the magazine even sent us a draft copy of the article to check for accuracy before it was printed. (That almost never happens, don’t expect it.) But when we saw it in print, an editor had helpfully inserted just one new sentence to make things more clear — explaining that open universes were ones that would expand forever. Except that we were working in the slightly unusual context of 3 spacetime dimensions, not the usual 4, and in that case open universes don’t really “expand” at all. Good intentions gone awry.
  • I was once in the audience for a panel featuring David Kestenbaum, a science reporter for NPR. He played us a tape of a radio journalist talking to a scientist about the fear of avian flu spreading from the Bronx Zoo. The scientist babbled on at length about open systems and complex environment and disease vectors in a rapid-fire stream of utter incomprehensibility. The journalist stopped him for a second, and basically said “Look, cutting to the chase, does the zoo pose a danger?” The scientist said “No, absolutely not.” “Okay, could you say that directly?” “Sure, no problem.” And then the journalist asks the question again, to which the scientist — well, you can guess. A rapid-fire stream of dense jargon, in which the word “No” never appeared. Completely useless for the radio.

As far as the Very Big Picture is concerned, scientists and journalists are on the same side. We all want to tell interesting and true stories to a wide audience. But when it comes to specifics, aims and competencies often diverge. Understanding what each others’ goals and constraints are can definitely help to make for a better final product.

So here are some things that I, as a scientist, have figured out about what journalists want. At least I think I have figured them out; actual journalists are welcome to jump in and explain what they really want in their own words.

(more…)

March 21st, 2008 by Sean in Advice, Science and the Media | 45 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

The Other Side of Graduate Admissions

Now that late January is upon us, a wave of graduate school admissions letters is soon to come crashing down upon undergraduates throughout the land. The process can be immensely frustrating to a student, as one often has little idea as to what magic ingredient is determining whether one is admitted or rejected from different schools. Having been involved in graduate admissions decisions for much of the last decade, I therefore thought I’d give a summary of how it’s done at UW Astronomy, so students can get a sense of where in the process their application might potentially go astray. My take will be different from other schools and other departments whose admissions committees may emphasize different strengths, but at least it’s one data point where few are available.

Details below the fold. Enter if you dare!
(more…)

January 29th, 2008 by Julianne in Academia, Advice | 38 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

Show the Love

410634aa0.jpgYesterday we went to see a chat with Alan Alda and KC Cole at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication, as advertised by Clifford here. Alda was apparently some kind of TV actor back in the day, but he is also quite the science aficionado — hosting Scientific American Frontiers on PBS, and originating the role of Richard Feynman in Peter Parnell’s play QED.

The most interesting story we heard was one that happened just the day before, when Alda and Cole visited with some students at USC’s engineering school. Apparently it was quite a day, beginning with short presentations by each of the students about the work they were doing. After the presentations, Alda led the students through a series of improvisation exercises from Viola Spolin’s classic workbook. After which, the students were asked to give their presentations again! Apparently (I have to take their word for it), the first time around the students were pretty darn good, but the second time they truly came to life.

Giving talks, or presenting ideas more generally, is one of the necessary skills of academic life that we usually presume one just picks up on street corners. The idea that, for example, college professors should learn how to teach classes would be an anathema to most actual college professors. But there is a lot of skill involved, and practice and learning can really make a difference. (The same would go for writing papers, or being an advisor, or a thousand other aspects of being a professor.)

My favorite part of the chat was Alda’s admonition to scientists to “Show the Love.” He was moved by the evident passion for their work exhibited by the students, but recognized that it didn’t always come through during scientific presentations. So here is some simple advice to young scientists giving talks: show the love! (Good advice to old scientists, too, but there’s no hope they would listen.) Let it be clear that you are absolutely fascinated by this work you are doing. You’re not in it for the money and fame, one presumes. Don’t look at a talk as a terrifying ordeal to be stoically survived; look at it as a chance to share some of your passion with other people who haven’t delved as deeply into the material as you have. I know we’re not supposed to use icky words like “love” in the rigorously austere corridors of professional physics, but this is a case where a little culture-changing wouldn’t hurt anybody.

And if you’re not all that passionate about what you’re doing — switch to doing something you really do love.

Update: Jennifer adds more words, plus an amusing cartoon, and an annoying poem.

January 17th, 2008 by Sean in Academia, Advice | 25 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

Unsolicited Advice, V: How to Apply for a Faculty Job

After wading through a mile-high stack of applications for an open faculty position at UW a few years ago, I compiled a list of tips for postdocs hoping to make the transition to the faculty level. I’m therefore barging into Sean’s Unsolicited Advice series with advice for the later stages, completely screwing up his numerical order in the process (sorry Sean!). This advice is undoubtedly biased towards those applying to research oriented universities, rather than to smaller liberal arts colleges with a stronger emphasis on teaching. I also am in a pure astronomy department, and can’t say for sure whether the physicists have some more involved series of secret handshakes and passwords that they use to evaluate candidates. You’ll therefore have to cherry pick the advice as needed. Hopefully others can weigh in on comments to bring a different perspective. Let’s begin!

Read the job description!

Very rarely do departments conduct truly open searches. Instead, they are usually trying to fill some current need in their department, whether it’s finding someone to teach a particular graduate course, to expand into a new research direction, or to build strength in a specific subfield. They will usually try to make this clear in the advertisement. If you do not fit the description, you need to explicitly address that fact in your application (usually in the cover letter, but also in your research statement as well). For example “Although my past research has been focused primarily on predicting the gravitational radiation signatures of colliding black holes, it has a natural outgrowth into the generic physics of compact objects” or “While I’m known for my work on galactic dynamics, I have published several papers on barium abundances in K-giants.” It’s OK to apply for jobs for which you are not a perfect fit, as long as you explain why you think they should still take a look at you. Also don’t self-select out if you’re not a perfect match to the ad. Like the lottery, you can’t win if you don’t play.

Remember that it’s a job, not a prize.

Many postdoctoral positions are “prize fellowships” that go to the applicant with the most scientific promise and/or the strongest record. Faculty positions are different. They are jobs. There is work involved, and the department is looking to bring in someone who can do that work. They are not passing out an award to you for being smart. If there will be teaching involved, you need to discuss your teaching record and philosophy explicitly. What graduate courses could you teach? Would you be comfortable teaching large introductory courses? Do you think you’ll be a good mentor for students? If there are large department projects underway (i.e. new facilities or initiatives), discuss the role you will play in shepherding those projects.

Understand the institution.

It’s remarkable how many applications we get that clearly have no understanding of our institution. They don’t know who’s on the faculty, what research is done here, or what facilities we have. If you’re applying to a small liberal arts teaching college, you shouldn’t be discussing how you look forward to working with grad students. If your work absolutely requires the world’s largest telescopes, and you’re applying to a place that doesn’t have one, you had better explain why you think that will be just fine with you. Otherwise, you look unserious about the position, which makes you look immature, and unready for the larger responsibilities of being a faculty member. Departments love to hire grownups!

Don’t write more than a 3-4 page research statement.

Why? Because I’m reading 99 other applications and have better things to do then read a 20 page review article. And don’t try to dodge this advice by using a tiny font. I will not be fooled, and will instead be annoyed.

Look to the future.

Unless you’ve applied to a place with a poor record of tenuring assistant professors, you may be at the institution for decades, and they’re going to want to know what you’re thinking about doing in the next five years. More of the same? Branching into new directions? Switching wavelength regimes? We’re not after a detailed plan for the next six months, but a brief general discussion of where you think your research is heading.

Know your weakness, and fix it.

If you’re not getting on short lists after a few years of trying, there’s a reason. Find out what that reason is, and fix it before the next round of applications are due. You need to take a cold hard critical assessment of yourself as a scientist and colleague. Compare your record to those of the people who are getting on the short lists. Are you not publishing enough? If not, then stop traveling or writing proposals and write something up instead. Are your papers not getting cited (hint: you’re working on stuff that people find uninteresting)? If not, then you need to work on something that will actively shape the larger scientific discussion, rather than working on something that is decades ahead of its time, that will get scooped by someone else who has better data and works faster than you, or that just cleans up a few details of little general interest. Alternatively, if you haven’t been traveling at all, you need to go give some good talks at major meetings and drum up some interest. Do you have a larger vision? If not, you need to step back from your little piece of the puzzle and figure out what the big problem is you’re trying to address, and then reassess if you’re taking the right step to answer it — avoiding the old chestnut that “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. Do you communicate well? If responses to your talks seem lukewarm, you need to learn how to give more engaging informative talks. Practice them in front of grad students. Practice them in front of someone who you trust to give you the truth. Which brings us to…

Give good talks.

Anyone who is personally known to someone on the committee has a real leg up. “Oh yeah, I saw her give a great talk in Victoria!” goes a long way to getting your application an extra look. The flip side is that you really can’t afford to give a bad talk at this stage of your career. If all someone remembers is that they fell asleep during your talk, it’s not going to help you. Since teaching is an essential part of being a faculty member, bad talks will kill you. Don’t write your talk the night before, no matter how much other stuff you have to do. If you have been lacking opportunities to give talks (i.e. you’re not being invited to give colloquia, and keep getting assigned posters at conferences), get some help from any senior person you see as a mentor (and also re-evaluate your research choices and your speaking skills!).

Don’t neglect the cover letter.

The cover letter is the opportunity to frame your role in the department. Who do you see yourself working with? What big projects/facilities at the department interest you? What can you offer the department to make it a better institution?

Make your CV easy to interpret.

Separate refereed and unrefereed papers. Put your name in bold-face in all author lists. Include the titles of your papers. A nice layout and scrupulous avoidance of typos keep you from looking sloppy.

If you don’t get the job, sometimes it’s not you.

Sometimes there is absolutely nothing you could have done to get a particular job, short of having an entire personality/interest transplant. Sometimes a department needs a big scientific presence to shake things up, and if you’re a more careful deep thinker, you’re just not going to fit the mold. Sometimes they need a generous mentoring presence, and if you’re an energetic mover on the national scene, you’re not going to get the job. Sometimes they really really really really need someone to work on star formation, and you don’t. You may be demographically wrong — too fresh out of grad school, or too senior for a greying department. So, don’t take it too personally if you don’t get a specific position. However, don’t use this fact as too much of an excuse if you never get on short lists, and instead go back to the advice above.

Decide if you really want a faculty job in the first place.

Being a faculty member is not the only way to be a scientist. There are many jobs out there that don’t require worrying through another 6 years of uncertainty, dealing with hordes of sometimes mathematically illiterate 18-year olds, struggling for grants and putting up with the psychoses of other faculty. Take a good hard look at Rate Your Students first and decide if this is really for you. Just because being a faculty member seems like the obvious next step, it isn’t always the best step for you. Don’t be afraid to send out a round of “real world” applications at the same time and see what alternate paths are available.

UPDATE: Doug Natelson weighs in in the comments with a link to a parallel physics-oriented post on his blog.

September 26th, 2007 by Julianne in Academia, Advice | 23 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

Unsolicited Advice, IV: How to Be a Good Graduate Student

Past installments of Unsolicited Advice dealt with such mechanical topics as how to choose an undergraduate school or graduate school, or how to get into graduate school. (Hell if I know how to get into undergraduate schools.) Now we step fearlessly into somewhat more treacherous territory: how to be a good graduate student. As always, this is one idiosyncratic viewpoint, and others should be offered in the comments.

It’s treacherous, of course, because there is certainly no right way to go about being a good graduate student. Once upon a time, as part of my ongoing campaign to discredit the notion of make-or-break general exams, I had the physics department at Chicago do a survey of their faculty, asking them to give a subjective rating of all the Ph.D. students who had graduated in the last five years (and with whose work they were familiar). We then plotted the resulting scores against how well they did on the candidacy exam. Result: there was a small handful of students who completely dominated on the exam, and were pretty much recognized as excellent physicists, clustered in the corner. Other than that, a complete scatterplot — there was no correlation between test scores and success in physics (among this highly-selected sample). But if you plotted candidacy-exam scores against incoming physics GRE scores, it was almost a perfect correlation. There are some students who are the kind who are really good at physics in an exam-type environment, and who have the ability to carry through that talent to actually doing research. But there are others who struggle with the tests, yet nevertheless are great physicists. And vice-versa: you can be a crappy physicist, whether or not you do well at the GRE’s and general exams.

The point being, there are many ways to be a successful physicist, and a corresponding number of ways to be a successful grad student. So the first piece of advice, possibly too vague to be useful, is: Look to maximize your talents. Typically, your first year or two in grad school you have some flexibility. You’re taking classes (this is written from an American perspective, sorry), and possibly also doing research, but you haven’t necessarily been tied down to a final choice of thesis advisor, or even research field, or even theory vs. experiment. This would be a good time to be honest with yourself — what are you really good at? You might have had your heart set on building the next great particle accelerator ever since you deconstructed your parents’ stereo when you were twelve, but when someone puts a soldering iron in your hand you just can’t seem to stop breaking things. But you did get a perfect score on the GRE. Well, maybe it’s time to face the music and switch to string theory.

But I’m burying the lede here. If I had to concentrate on a single useful piece of advice for grad students, it would be: Take the initiative. The deep truth of grad school is that the transition from undergrad to grad is when you go from primarily being “a student” to primarily being “a scientist.” As a student, your primary responsibility was to do what your professors told you to. As a scientist, your primary responsibility is to do good science. Many students struggle in grad school, especially in the early years, because they are implicitly waiting to be told what to do. Don’t wait — try to figure out what you should be doing, and do it. Check the arxiv in the morning to look for interesting papers. Go to colloquia and seminars, even if you don’t understand them — nobody really understands them, and it’s the best way to get a feeling for what those things are that you should be working toward understanding. Talk to people! Knock on professors’ doors (or, more politely, email them to make an appointment), and chat with them about what they are doing and what you might like to be doing. Even better, talk to senior grad students and — best of all — postdocs! They have more time than professors, and have a better understanding of the situation you are in right now. (When it comes time to apply for postdocs yourself, you’re going to need three letters of recommendation from scientists who know you and your work very well. If you can only think of one or two people who might qualify, you’ve badly mismanaged your time in grad school.) Come up with ideas! A good advisor will set you on a productive path for your first research projects, but that’s no reason why you shouldn’t also be trying to come up with good ideas yourself; at some point that’s going to be your job, after all. And when it comes to the nitty-gritty of actually doing research, whether it’s theory or experiment, don’t expect anyone to hold your hand at every step — use your brain to try to figure out what should be done next. At some point you will sit back and realize that it’s kind of fun. And then it will dawn on you that you’ve passed the threshold toward which you’ve been progressing for quite a number of years — you’re an honest-to-goodness scientist.

We can’t pretend, of course, that being a scientist is just a matter of willpower; you do have to learn some stuff. One of the eternal grad-school dilemmas is how many courses you should take, vs. how quickly you should just devote yourself to doing research. I’m going to have to be wishy-washy here, as there is no right answer, although it’s certainly possible to go too far in either direction. If you dive into doing research without having a proper grounding in coursework, you can end up being an expert in the one particular hyper-specialized thing that you are researching, but be left with a rather fuzzy grasp of all the rest of physics. Not only does a situation like that doom you to a lifetime of sitting in on talks that you don’t understand, but it might prevent you from making crucial connections that would actually be useful in your own work. But contrariwise, it’s certainly possible to spend too much of your time taking classes. Classwork is what you have trained to be good at, and in some ways it’s a comforting environment. But it’s ultimately not the point of why you are in grad school. Likewise, sometimes you will really want to learn some particular subject, but your department doesn’t offer a course in it. Here’s where you should figure out that it’s your responsibility to teach it to yourself. Especially these days, when there are not only five good textbooks but countless reviews on every subject available online, there’s no excuse for waiting for a teacher to come along — see the previous paragraph.

Even once you get past courses and are unambiguously doing research, a similar dilemma presents itself — calculating vs. contemplating. (That would be the theorist’s version of the dilemma, anyway; experimenters are invited to suggest alliterative formulations of “tinkering vs. collecting data.”) Being a scientist is a back-and-forth process, between on the one hand looking at the big picture, learning the basics, thinking deeply, coming up with new ideas, and on the other hand digging into the details, getting your hands dirty, and actually coming up with some tangible results. Science depends on both, although many people are happier on one side than the other. Despite what was said earlier about finding your strengths, here’s a situation where you should make an extra effort to compensate for your weaknesses. You might be someone who loves doing calculations, producing page after page of equations, or file after file of simulation output. But if they don’t add up to an interesting result, people aren’t going to care that much. Or you might have deep and creative ideas about the nature of space and time or high-temperature superconductivity. But if you can’t wrestle those ideas down to some specific calculations, your colleagues aren’t going to be all that impressed. Sometimes, remember, the best ideas actually come about because you are simply fooling around with some calculations for their own sake.

All of this has been necessarily vague, in accordance with the fact that there are many good ways to be a successful grad student. But at the end, the goal (for most people) is pretty concrete: to land a good postdoc. Do keep that in mind. So, no matter what your individual approach to success is, here is the eyes-on-the-prize advice: Be the kind of grad student that people would like to hire as a postdoc. What kind of student is that? Well, just ask yourself what you would be looking for, if you had a pile of promising postdoc applications in front of you. Some people are lucky enough to get general-purpose fellowships that are based simply on their genius; so if the genius thing is working for you, great. More postdocs are hired by some particular person or group, to perform some fairly well-defined kind of research. What those people are looking for is a postdoc who will contribute to their group, whether by being an awesome individual researcher, or by being a useful collaborator. So, be that person. While you’re in grad school, establish a track record of productivity by writing papers. Even better, write good papers — write about things that other people are interested in. What is it about your research or skill set that makes you useful to people hiring postdocs? Become the world’s expert in some hot topic, or the master of some novel technique, along with establishing your broad-based competence. A good postdoc is expected to enliven a research group by being plugged into all the latest good stuff going on in the field, bubbling with new ideas and the energy and know-how to turn those ideas into tangible results. That should be you.

(Certainly, not everyone will become a postdoc, nor should they. One of my best students didn’t even apply for postdocs, after he determined it just wasn’t for him. There are many other directions in which to steer your career after a successful time in grad school, and it pays to keep those possibilities in the back of your mind all along. But I’m not really the one to ask about them.)

To be more concrete yet: Be a finisher. After several years of grad school, what do you have to show for it? Write papers, do analyses, build equipment, finish experiments. Demonstrate beyond any doubt that you can take the project from beginning to end, not just sit around the coffee room and lob probing questions. Give talks! Have something to say, and be confident that other people want to hear it. I’ve actually heard some students say that they love science, but don’t like writing papers or giving talks. That’s like saying you love being a butcher, just aren’t very fond of cutting up animals. (Suggestions for more illuminating similes are welcome.) Writing papers and giving talks is the entire point of what you are doing. Be enthusiastic about it, and while you’re at it, be good at it. There are so many smart people out there who write impenetrable papers or give incomprehensible talks, one good way to distinguish yourself from the herd is to learn to communicate effectively. But it won’t help unless you have something tangible to communicate.

September has long been my favorite month of the year, as campuses come to life with the incoming students, many of them starting off on a new adventure of one sort or another. Go get ‘em, tiger.

Update: Many other people, of course, have offered advice on how to be a good grad student. If you know of any, mention them in the comments and I’ll link from here.

September 26th, 2007 by Sean in Academia, Advice | 51 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >