Monday, September 10, 2012

My first month as an assistant professor

If I had to estimate, so far my time each week is partitioned as follows:

Some points of interest include

  • an insanely large proportion of time devoted to preparing for lectures, far more than I actually spend giving the lectures
  • an abysmally small proportion of time devoted to doing research
  • a much larger proportion of time spent dealing with other people's fuck-ups than I would like

Let me relate a few of these fuck-ups for entertainment purposes (yours, not mine). For about two weeks I was unable to get into my office because no one had a key to the door. I had a TA waiting for a copy of the course textbook for three weeks, and it turned out it was sitting in the dept. office the whole time. I am still waiting for computers because the purchase orders never got submitted.

The time spent preparing to teach is largely because it's a new prep, so hopefully in the future that will be pared down some. Also, it's because I'm OCD about my lecture slides being beautiful. That I can't blame anyone else for. Except maybe my PhD supervisor, since he is OCD about his lecture slides and he trained me to be just like him. Yes, it is all his fault.

Now, how would I like to be spending my time? Assuming that I can't just lie on a beach all day reading a good book:
A lot more research, a lot less dealing with other people's fuck-ups. Now that would get me out of bed in the morning.




Sunday, July 22, 2012

Career resources for postdocs and new faculty

Today, in an effort to avoid working on lecture prep, I thought I would share some resources from around the web that I have found useful for my career preparation so far.

Psychology job wiki - This wiki is not only a useful place for perusing available faculty positions, the forums are really interesting. There is a lot of discussion about the job search process as well as issues relating to being a new faculty member. There are similar wiki's for other fields as well, and I imagine they also have useful forum discussions worth perusing.

Duke Postdoc Services YouTube channel - Duke has held a number of panel discussions and workshops for postdocs which they have helpfully recorded and made available via youtube. There are a number of videos on the job search and interview process, discussions about non-academic careers, lab management, funding... lots of good stuff.

Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty - this is the lab management guide I have just started going through. It is based on a course in scientific management offered at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and contains a ton of information on things like the job search process, staffing a lab, getting funding, effective teaching, and time management.

Other blogs that write about academic stuff and often provide some good food for thought:
Academic Jungle
The Professor is In
Female Science Professor
Female Computer Scientist
Academic Panhandling
Professor in Training
Prof-like Substance

Friday, July 20, 2012

Management skills

Yesterday a friend and I were swapping stories about our experiences with crappy supervisors and started discussing what we would do differently (which I think about a lot now that I'm a month away from having my own lab). This led to a more general discussion about good lab management skills and how a PI without good management skills can really destroy a lab. We're now both reading through this guide to scientific management and so far it seems to contain some really helpful information. I will write more as I continue reading through this manual, but for now I thought I'd share a couple of thoughts from yesterday's discussion.

1) In our field, lab dynamics are really important. Particularly because we all have to share the same equipment and work space, it is really important that the lab is filled with people who are good collaborators and co-workers. Even having one person who is inconsiderate of others' time and space can become toxic for a lab, leading to much anger and resentment. In my experience, this also destroys productivity, as people aren't usually great workers when they're miserable at work. Being a good manager means recognizing problems early, trying to fix those problems quickly, and recognizing when it's time to let someone go. For some reason, in academia there is very little "letting someone go," the status quo seems to be to avoid dealing with the problem person and just graduate them as quickly as possible (also, lots of scary stories about people writing great reference letters for bad people just to get them out of their lab quickly). As far as good management techniques go, this seems like a colossal failure to me and one that I am keen to avoid.

2) If a PI is a bad manager, there's no amount of good employees that can make up for it (unless the PI is so hands-off that they actually have no control over the lab). The PI typically makes all the decisions about which postdocs to hire, which grad students to accept, etc. So if a PI is unaware that there is a toxic person in the lab (or doesn't care, or cares but doesn't do anything about it) and no steps are taken to improve the situation, the whole lab will suffer. The PI is also the bottleneck for productivity, so even if a dozen talented students churn out top-notch papers, if the PI has poor time-management those papers will languish, unpublished, for months or years.

2b) The majority of people who end up in grad school are pretty competitive "Type A" people who want to succeed. If they feel like they are being prevented from succeeding by their PI in some way (or by other lab members) then they will probably end up being very unhappy, and unhappy people are not usually the most productive. Unhappy people also tend to want to get out of bad situations, which can mean really talented researchers leaving academia. Talented people leaving academia because they had a horrible experience with a supervisor is bad for science. If you are a scientist you probably love science, so it seems pretty counterproductive to behave in a way that's ultimately bad for science.



Sunday, July 1, 2012

Happy Canada Day!!!

Canada Day google doodle on google.ca
Everyone should go drink some Canadian beer, maybe get yourself some poutine for lunch, and watch this video:


A note on the stupidest utility company ever

The lastest in a long line of moving-related hassles is that the electric company in my soon-to-be-state is, well, not so helpful: they require you to go into their office to show ID before they will set up service at your new address. Now, if I currently lived in that state, this wouldn't really be much of a problem. But since I do not, this is a GIANT F&*#ING HASSLE. I either will have no electricity when I move in and have to pay to stay in a hotel, or I have to drive 2.5 hours to the nearest office to show them my ID (because there is a lot of utility-related fraud?) then drive 2.5 hours home. Before my last move I was able to set up all my utilities from 3000 miles away (and in a different country no less) so that I had water and electricity when I moved in. One place required notarized copies, but paying the notary at the UPS store $5 is much less of a hassle than spending 5 hours in my car just to show ID in person. SCE&G, you suck.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Early deadlines and faculty retention: Any connection?

Today I found myself a little shocked at an ad for a tenure-track faculty position - the job starts in August 2013 and the application deadline was August 15th, 2012. The job application deadlines seem to keep getting earlier and earlier. This is, of course, no accident. It is a strategy that some departments employ to try to obtain the best job candidates - the top-tier candidates who would likely get multiple job offers from good schools. The idea is to speed up your hiring timeline so that you can make offers to top candidates before they have offers from other schools, or even before those schools have started interviewing. Particularly in the craptastic job market we're in now, the idea is to tempt someone to accept a position rather than risk getting no other offers from better places. Thus, the university increases their odds of obtaining a top candidate that they otherwise would have lost to a better school if they'd delayed making an offer. 


In reading some of the academic job search forums, there seem to be a number of people who have some degree of "buyer's remorse" or who feel like they were forced to take a less-than-ideal job because declining a decent position in an uncertain market was too risky (people gotta eat!).  So I guess my thought is, does this strategy of capturing the best people early actually work in the long term? Or does this hiring practice just lead to poorer retention of faculty? 


If these good candidates do get other interview or job offers after they've accepted a position, are they likely to feel some regret for having accepted a less-than-ideal position just because of an uncertain job market? If you feel like you've been manipulated into taking a job or have regrets about "what might have been", how likely are you to feel satisfied with your job? I can imagine that someone who starts out their job less-than-thrilled about where they ended up is much more likely to keep looking for other positions. Are these people more likely to treat their positions as "starter jobs" and plan to move on to a new job in a few years than people who were hired later in the season and knew all their options before deciding? 

Thoughts?

Side note: I hate the thought of trying to round up reference letters for an August application deadline - it would be hell trying to get profs to send in letters while they're on holiday. Too early people, too early.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Postdoc-ing in the US: A cautionary tale

UPDATE: I got my waiver today, it took much less time than expected. Now just the processing of the new visa and I'm good to go! I guess I should probably start prepping my lectures now that it looks like I'll be legal to teach come August...

Friday, March 9, 2012

It's OK to be wrong

This morning one of my Facebook friends shared a link to this blog post on Psychology Today, wherein a researcher goes on a rather embittered rant about the publication of a journal article that failed to replicate one of his lab's earlier findings. Now, he likely has some very valid points about differences in experimental procedures that influenced the results or explanations the researchers failed to consider. The problem is that he attacks the researchers and the journal in a completely unprofessional way that just makes him appear to be bitter that someone said he was wrong.

As someone who has been on both sides of the 'failure to replicate' debate, my advice to a researcher who feels that a replication attempt was not valid would be to 1) publish a (professional!) comment/reply in that journal or 2) Perform your own follow-up studies to provide further evidence for your position and publish a paper on it. Here the bitter guy claims that he had no choice but to scrutinize the article on his blog because he had never been asked to review the original article. The article in question, however, was published in PLoS ONE, which encourages post-publication review in the form of online comments and discussion. There are currently no comments on the paper on the PLoS ONE website. Instead of starting a professional, scholarly debate in an appropriate forum he just kind of made himself look like an asshole.

Professionalism issues and this specific incident aside, I think the more important point to be made here is that it's OK to be wrong.  Science isn't a static process where you prove something to be true and then it's true for all eternity. Science is about having a falsifiable hypothesis and testing it... which means the possibility of being wrong is built right into the scientific method!

Even the best and brightest, award-winning scientists have been wrong. Sometimes you're not totally wrong, you're just not entirely right. Sometimes you are shown to be wrong with the advent of new technology that allows us to look at things in a way that wasn't previously possible. Science isn't about being "right" or finding the "truth", it's about coming to a conclusion based on the best available current evidence. As that evidence changes over time with new technology and new ideas then our conclusions need to change too. Someone showing that your theory is wrong does not make you a bad or worthless scientist, it probably just means that you are doing something important enough for people to follow-up on! So let's stop thinking about who's right and who's wrong - we're all wrong, just in varying degrees of wrongness that may take more or less time to uncover. As long as the field as a whole is advancing and you are doing your part to contribute new knowledge, then you're doing science right.

UPDATE: Here is an example of how to proceed when someone writes an article disagreeing with your research and you want to follow up with some points on why you disagree:  http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(12)00053-8

Thursday, March 8, 2012

impromptu rant

I just read a post about how faculty members were horribly upset by a group of graduate students who requested a workshop on, basically, how to be successful on the academic job market (full post here). I can't even begin to express how much this attitude annoys me. Good supervisors want their students to be successful. Good supervisors will make sure that their students have all the resources they need to be successful, even if that means getting information or assistance from other people. And good supervisors recognize that every good student they produce and help successfully procure a faculty position is going to help them procure funding and more good students. Everyone wins! I will give my future students whatever information I can, but my experience on the job market in 2011 may not be anything like what their experience will be like in (mental math...) 2018. So if they can get information from an expert that will help them I want them to, and I want them to share that information with me so that I can be better informed too.

This, a million times this:
Set your ego aside! Do what it takes to make sure your Ph.D.s get the training they need, whatever the source. (via http://theprofessorisin.com/)

changin' things up, keepin'em interesting

Now that I'm going to be moving on to a new job, I decided it was a good time to start updating my web presence to reflect my new position. Since I don't really know what "assistant professor style" is supposed to look like, this update is pretty much just changing my colour scheme (and moving the sidebar to the other side of the screen! so exciting! <sarcasm>). But hey, change is good, it keeps things from getting dull. Like maybe no one will notice that I haven't written anything interesting in a while because they'll be distracted by the new layout...

Next up will be overhauling my website, which is really a wonderful way to procrastinate without feeling like you're procrastinating.

New (actually interesting) posts soon, about new job stuff and grant writing and all sorts of fun things.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

The end of an era

So I did it. I finally made a decision and accepted a job offer! In less than six months I will be an Assistant Professor. Mostly I'm excited at the prospect of having my own lab, but every so often my brain goes, "Holy s--t! I have a real job!"

I've been training for this job for... 12 years now? Not content with my string of unsatisfying jobs in retail and strangely excited by my cousin's college course catalog, I started taking courses at the college down the street in 2000. After moving to one of the local universities and experimenting with a wide variety of courses, I finally settled on a major. Somehow this snowballed into volunteering in a lab, writing an honours thesis, and applying to grad school. Then came five years of masochism grad school, where I spent countless hours training to be a professor one day. The training continued with a postdoctoral position, the idea being that you are more independent but still being pounded into shape for that fateful day when you become a professor.

It feels really weird to know that the training era is over. Not that I won't still be continually learning new things, but now I will be responsible for training other people instead of being trained myself. Freaky.

Also, I today I got to delete all my RSS feeds for job ads! My google reader is a little less full, but I'm sure I can find something entertaining on the internet to take up that space.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Decisions, Decisions

I am about to complain about something that will probably not garner me a lot of sympathy: I have multiple job offers and making a decision is really hard!

Yes, I know. I do realize that this is the academic equivalent of First World Problems. There are starving children in Africa postdocs with no job offers. Of all the problems one could have, this really isn't such a bad one. No matter which decision I make, I will end up with a tenure-track faculty position at an R1 institution (RU/VH in the new Carnegie classification system, which no one on the job search wiki seems to use, but I digress). So really, I'm in a pretty awesome position and I know it.

But despite knowing how lucky I am, making such a huge life decision still makes me feel like my head is going to explode. What if I make the wrong decision? What if I end up hating everyone I work with? What if they all end up hating me? What if I work my ass off and still don't get tenure? Where am I going to have the best luck attracting good grad students? What about all the fringe benefits: which place has the best health insurance, retirement plans, etc. Which climate do I prefer, too hot or too cold? Will the start-up package be enough to cover what I need? The list of questions running through my mind is pretty endless at this point.


To combat my current mental disorganization, I am creating an overly-complicated pro/con spreadsheet, complete with ridiculous colour-coding and a bizarre scheme for awarding points for different factors. I will probably revise the points scheme at least 3 more times before the end of the day tomorrow. I suspect that after spending days rating and calculating, one school will emerge the winner - at which point I will either feel happy or disappointed and will know which place I prefer. I suppose I could just draw a name out of a hat and see how I feel about it to save myself the time and stress, but there's just something about colour-coded spreadsheets I really enjoy.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

The Hidden Dangers of Job Interviews

When you are invited for a campus interview it is completely normal to be excited. Other people will congratulate you and be excited for you. Of course, it is a fantastic thing. What no one ever talks about are the downsides to interviewing. Namely, that it kills your productivity.

With my first job interview the problem was that I had to spend an enormous amount of time preparing my talk and google-stalking all the faculty to find out about their research and the school and whatnot. A solid two weeks before the interview was devoted to interview prep at the expense of all my other work.

This latest interview took up much less of my time on prep, as I only needed to tweak an existing job talk. However, interviewing means plane travel in the middle of winter with inconsiderate sick people coughing all over the place. This time I came home post-interview to discover I had inherited the germs expelled by the woman sitting next to me, thus dramatically reducing my ability to write manuscripts.

Productivity aside, the other hidden danger is caused by the fancy interview clothes one is forced to wear. 1) you look like an ass at the airport, travelling in a suit while everyone else is in jeans and sweatshirts. 2) Winter + dress shoes = increased likelihood of falling down and making a fool of yourself (yes, I did this). 3) Pencil skirt + getting in/out of a pick-up truck = looking like an idiot and possibly flashing people. Invest in a pant suit or nice trousers for your job talk, totally worth it.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Rejection Letters

'Tis now the time of year when the bevy of rejection letters arrives in ones mailbox. If you're a normal person anyway. I'm sure there is some superstar out there who is getting tons of job offers and has yet to feel the sting of rejection. I, however, am not that superstar and my inbox is amassing a collection of "I regret to inform you" emails.

And yet, I haven't been truly disappointed or upset by any of my rejections for job applications this year. Given the craptastic market and the stories I keep hearing about people not getting any interviews at all, I'm mostly happy that I got some interviews and that they are all at pretty good places. I recall finding the rejection from grad schools more hurtful, like they didn't think I was good enough to accept into their program (those bastards!). But I guess after years of rejection from funding agencies and journals (I'm looking at you Science, Nature, Nat Neurosci, PNAS, Psyc Sci, J Neurosci), I've gotten to a point where the rejection is just part of the job. I would, of course, prefer not to be rejected, but when the other 15 13 (got two more emails) rejection letters I'm expecting show up in my inbox I will just shrug and move on.

I'm actually finding the rejection letters themselves really interesting. Although they all have the same basic info ("We don't want you!") every school has their own take on the rejection form letter. Some were very formal (Dear Dr. <LastName>), some were more casual (Dear <FirstName>), while some went full-on form-letter with a "Dear Applicant" or not using a salutation at all and just getting right to the rejection part. Some have cushioned the rejection nicely, "Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your application. I regret to inform you that you have not been chosen for further consideration for this position. Please know that this should not be considered a negative reflection on your work. The pool of candidates was large and the search committee was forced to make very difficult decisions. We wish you the very best in your career and future endeavors." Others were very short and to the point, "I am writing to share officially the news that the position has been filled. We wish you the best of luck and we thank you for your interest in University X."

With each new rejection letter I take a few moments to enjoy the language and psychology of it then I file it away in a folder and go about my business. I haven't yet gotten to the point where I feel the need to attempt this tactic:

Monday, January 30, 2012

An Overabundance of PhD's

Over the weekend I was catching up on some blog reading and I was quite happy to see this post on "The Professor Is In" about supply and demand for PhD's. Here is a snippet:
Never, ever, at any time, not even once, was there a discussion of the question: do these Ph.D. students we’re admitting have a reasonable chance of using their Ph.D.s for employment after leaving our program? That question was entirely irrelevant to our deliberations. The ultimate professional fate of the graduate students had absolutely no significance in their value to us as faculty. Instead, their value to us as faculty hinged on:
  • Our egos. The “best” (ie, most successful and famous) faculty members had the most students. The quantity of a faculty member’s Ph.D. students boosted the faculty member’s status vis-a-vis colleagues and conferred bragging rights.
  • Our teaching needs. The department quite literally could not run without the teaching labor of the graduate students. In one of my departments the entire first, second, and third year language programs in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (some 30,000 credit hours annually) were handled entirely by graduate students.
  • Our legitimacy. A department without a Ph.D. program is a second-class department nationally and on campus. A department with a smaller Ph.D. program is a “lesser” department than one with a larger Ph.D. program. No faculty member would willingly work to reduce the size of the department’s graduate program, because it would reduce the status of the program, and thus the status of the faculty members associated with it. Ultimately, it would reduce the standing of those faculty members for things like raises and research funding.
A few points to add based on my own experiences:
1) part of a department's budget comes from how many students they have. More grad students often means more money in the department coffers. I was pretty shocked when I found out that PhD students were worth twice as much money to the department as MA students... and then the 'fast-track' program to get students into the PhD without finishing their Master's made a whole lot more sense.
2) In my experience with individual faculty members it has been less about 'ego' when it comes to having many grad students and more about productivity and the ability to obtain funding. The (often misguided) idea is that having more grad students means you can get more research done and this will increase your odds of obtaining grants. It is typically the quality of the students and the quality of the student-supervisor relationship that matters much more than their sheer number. One superstar grad student paired with the right supervisor will likely accomplish much more than five good grad students paired with a sub-optimal supervisory match.

Anyone who has been on the job market in the past 5 years knows that there are far more PhD's graduating and needing jobs than there are academic jobs available. For some this is not a problem, they are excited to leave academia and move into the (typically much higher paying) world of industry. Most grad students, however, are accepted into PhD programs with the hope and promise of one day being tenured professors. Sadly, many will not get tenure-track faculty positions and will feel like they have to "settle" for a position other than the faculty position they were working towards for the better part of a decade. In my opinion, fixing this problem really requires that faculty are more thoughtful about which students they take on, everyone is realistic and honest about their job prospects, and students are taught about (and prepared for) jobs other than tenure-track faculty positions so that they know what their options are.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Random Geekiness: 500th Visitor!

Checking out my blog stats this morning, I realized I'd hit a milestone. There have now been over 500 visitors to this here blog, 43% of which have returned for multiple visits! We've now had readers from 28 countries, and have hit all the good parts of Canada and the USA (there are some places in the middle that don't seem to like me, but I've got both coasts covered!).

As a thank you to my readers, I have decided to share with you links to some of my other favourite places on the web.

If you're looking for an academic position in psychology I recommend:

Some other blogs that I like to check out:

And some random fun things you can use to procrastinate:

Friday, January 6, 2012

Guest post: On the dire consequences of CV padding

In response to my earlier post on people misrepresenting themselves on their CVs, I received an entertaining rant from a colleague. I present it for you here in it's complete and uncensored form (i.e., if you are easily offended, maybe skip reading this):

The dire societal and professional consequences of misrepresentation/CV padding

The job market in academia is competitive. There is no getting around that fact. This has not stopped people from attempting to present themselves in a more favorable light by stretching the truth, or in some cases lies, on their CV’s. It comes off as harmless enough: a few panel discussions here, a course you never taught there, a thesis student who can’t seem to be located and who just happens to be the not-so-distant relative of the deposed king of Nigeria. It seems harmless, doesn’t it?  They know they are qualified for the jobs, and if given enough time, they could most definitely achieve all these things. There just isn’t enough time and let’s face it, sometimes a delicious lie is more telling of one’s true character than a bland fact. Or the action of lying is more…the truth of…anyway...whatever.

CV-padding is rampant and harmful to you as a professional and to us as a professional society…to academia as a whole. This may not be evident if only for the justifications that people often provide (“It is mundane, common, and everybody does it.  I am fully capable of the things I describe. These lies are more reflective of my true and as-yet-unrealized potential that will undoubtedly be unlocked once given the position and salary I am sure I deserve.”).  Make no mistake it is dangerous. I will admit that things never seem dire or dangerous in the academic sphere, as we deal with intangibles, abstracts, and some baseline level of survivability and safety in our professional environment. But indulge me as I tell you a story of resume-padding in another time, and another place, where the consequences of such seemingly mundane treachery are fully realized.

Not long ago, or long ago, depending upon the state of affairs in that part of the world.  I don’t know, I am a scientist.  Let’s hedge our bets and say long ago. I don’t want to be a politically incorrect jerk here. Long ago, somewhere in Africa, or the Middle East, or maybe way southern Europe, not sure…was a land filled with sand and goats. And people. People who lived on the sand and off the goats. In this land lived a man with great ambition…a man named…Henry?  Really?  Ok, whatever. Henry was an ambitious man who sought to acquire many goats, as such was a status symbol in this particular time and place.  Such a feat was not easy, as goats were scarce and widely desired, and only those most trusted as effective goat herders were granted ownership of these majestic beasts.

Henry had very little experience herding goats, but understood them to be wieldy and controllable animals. He knew it was well within his ability to maintain a herd of at least 11 goats, which was a very high number at this time in history, when math and counting were but nascent babes of the mind. Henry approached the village elders (who were pretty young, actually…life expectancy being what it was) in search of goat…um…deeds or titles of ownership.  They made a simple request: “Demonstrate to us in a substantive way your ability to herd goats and you shall be entrusted with many tens of goats. If such is not possible, provide us with a record of this ability.”

Henry was at a loss, but only for a moment. He and many of his peers had rudimentary experience handling goats, as goats were customarily included as part of a dowry upon marrying a first cousin. Although Henry had not tracked and obtained this goat himself, he felt that by proxy, the goat that was obtained by his father-in-law (uncle), was obtained by himself.

Henry told the elders of his goat-having expertise and they were understandably impressed. They decided to grant Henry custody of all the village’s goats during their absence on an expedition in search of water (for this was a land of sand and goats, and not water).

Henry was granted the goats, who surprised him with their curious tendencies and wandering teeth. Henry was bitten by the alpha goat as the others fled. Henry could not give chase, as the alpha goat restrained him in an all-too-loving embrace.

Thus the villagers suffered, deprived of the meat and loving goats they so adored. They all died of starvation and loneliness. Henry was not put to death, as the punishment furnished by the horny alpha goat seemed adequate, and long-lasting.

So let this be a lesson. If you are willing to fabricate, inflate, or misrepresent information in your CV, you are probably the type of person who would marry their cousin. That, and you will eventually get fucked by a goat.

Succeeding Honestly

When people talk about academic dishonesty they are usually referring to people plagiarizing or falsifying data, or other such horrible practices. Everyone agrees that those things are horrible and unethical. But somehow more minor forms of dishonesty seem to be acceptable to a lot of otherwise ethical people. What am I talking about here? Being "creative" with one's CV.
Example #1: You have drafted a manuscript and sent it to your co-author for their comments. It will probably be submitted in a few weeks, but your scholarship application is due tomorrow. You decide to list the manuscript as submitted since you're sure it will be submitted by the time your application is evaluated. 
Example #2: You have resubmitted a manuscript that only required minor revisions and it is very likely that the paper will be accepted. You still haven't heard back from the editor and your grant application is due, so you decide to list it on your CV as 'in press' since you're sure it will be accepted soon. 
Example #3: Your supervisor was awarded a grant that would provide them with money to pay postdoctoral researchers (like this NRSA-Institutional, for example).  They hire you and use that funding to pay your salary. You decide to list it on your CV under your 'Awards' section to give the impression that you have be successful at getting grants even though the money wasn't actually awarded to you.  
Example #4: You have been unsuccessful on the job market the past 3 years and you really need to get a faculty position, so you decide to jazz up your applications. Some people in your department are performing really cutting-edge research that you think would make you more competitive for jobs, so you spend one afternoon observing them while they work. You then claim to have expertise in this new technique in your job applications. 
Example #5: You have very little teaching experience, having only worked as a teaching assistant a few times as a grad student. You decide to be very vague about the title of your position on your CV so that it could be construed as if you were the instructor rather than the TA. 
I have many more examples that I could cite, and these are just the ones I know about. When you don't know someone it's very difficult to judge how honest they are being with their CVs. Coupled with the rampant CV padding that goes on (see my previous rant about this here), CVs are becoming a decreasingly useful way of assessing an academic's quality. 

I think the most depressing statement I have ever heard was to the effect of, "Everyone else is tweaking their CVs like this, so if you want to be competitive you need to do the same thing." NO. THAT IS STUPID. This isn't the cold war, we're not in an arms race for academic superiority. Perhaps I am too much of an idealist, but I insist upon succeeding honestly and will demand that my students do as well. And how great will it feel to beat out all those other people for a job, funding, etc. knowing that you really earned it? Pretty f---ing great. 

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Happy New Year Y'all!

I took a break from blogging to get a manuscript written, but the first day of 2012 seemed like a good time to get back to it. Things to look forward to in upcoming posts: updates on my job interviews, a rant about people lying on their CV's/job applications, and some good advice I found on another blog about getting an academic position. 
Happy 2012!

(pic via: 9gag)