SURVEY RESULTS
--The responses were broken up into either research or teaching
positions;
if the respondent said that they spent more than 50% on research, they
were
classified as research (N=7) and if more than 50% on teaching, they
were
classified as teaching (N=4). Responses from instructors here at K.U.
were
classed separately (N=3).
Assign percentages which reflect the typical expected effort for
faculty at
your institution (doesn't total to 100% because of reply
inconsistencies,
and most of the replies said that the proportions depended on the
job):
Research positions: 58% RESEARCH 32% TEACHING 9%
ADMINISTRATIVE
Teaching positions: 21% RESEARCH 64% TEACHING 15%
ADMINISTRATIVE
Kansas University: 45% RESEARCH 40% TEACHING 15%
ADMINISTRATIVE
Please give each of the following items a rating as to its relative
importance in acquiring a "typical" (whatever that may mean) faculty
position in your institution -- 5 = extremely important, 1 =
unimportant.
We are interested in realistic answers, so please answer according to
what
is considered in practice, NOT what should be considered in theory.
RESEARCH TEACHING
K.U.
TEACHING HISTORY
Teaching experience, length of time = 1.9 3.3
4.0
Teaching experience, diversity of courses = 2.1 3.3
3.3
Teaching record, quality = 2.0 4.3
3.0
Teaching methods, type or philosophy of teaching = 1.6 2.3
2.3
ACADEMIC HISTORY
Undergraduate G.P.A. = 1.3 1.5
1.3
Undergraduate alma mater (does the school matter?)= 1.9 3.3
3.2
Graduate school G.P.A. = 1.9 2.3
1.7
Graduate alma mater (does the school matter?) = 3.4 3.3
4.8
Biology G.P.A. = 1.6 2.3
1.7
(One person added courses taken = 4.5)
RESEARCH HISTORY
Number of publications = 4.9 3.8
4.2
Quality of publications = 4.9 4.0
4.8
Quality of journals in which you were published = 4.9 3.8
4.5
Thesis/dissertation quality = 2.9 2.0
3.2
Grants received, quantity = 4.3 3.3
4.3
Grants received, sources = 3.7 2.0
3.5
Diversity of research history, subjects = 3.1 2.5
4.3
What are some of the qualities of applications which seem to rise
to the top and in the process separate the applicant from the rest
of the pack?
--potential for attracting funding
--potential for interaction with others in dept.
quality publications, quality of journal, post-doctoral work at
well-known university, strength of letters of recommendation$
Consistent publication record
Ability to attract funding
Potential for collaboration with other researchers on campus
Research in particular areas deemed important or desireable
Ability to create new courses deemed important in your department,
but also an ability to teach a range of existing courses.
Research track record and letters of recommendation
At our institution, some convincing narrative about why a
career of teaching at a small, liberal-arts college is desired by the
applicant is an absolute necessity. This can be by implication (e.g.,
an
obviously good experience as an undergraduate at a similar
institution),
but it HAS to be there. Also, any clear evidence of high quality
teaching
is invaluable. Things that I have seen are student evaluation scores,
letters of recommendation that specifically address teaching, and
letters
directly from students.
Sound scientific basis.
External funding.
1. Quality of journals in whichpicture of the candidate's history and
potential.
You forgot to mention references. These are critical. Candidates who
have strong letters of support from people who are well-known and
well-respected have a substantial advantage. History of grantsmanship
is very important (alas!). Once candidates are interviewed, the
sharpness of the seminar(s) and the ability to interview in a
relaxed and confident manner are critical factors that distinguish
between candidates: the uncomfortable candidates do not
do well.
(its not so much the amount of grants, but that someone has had any
success in getting grants. For pubs, its a quantity/quality
combinationSomeone who is in their 3rd yr of postdoc with one pub,
even in SCIENCE
isn't going to look good, on the other hand 10 pubs in an obscure
unrefereed journal doesn't look good either.)
This is based on having sat on a search committee last year, for
which
we received over 100 applications. Letters of recommendation are NOT
that
important, though they can hurt if they contain something bad (one
true
example: "This person is good at following directions and taking
orders").
A solid balanced record is best, someone in the second year of
postdocing with 4-6 pubs in good journals, and some experience at
getting
money, even if its small grants stands out.
Teaching experience is importopportunity to teach. There is
also the sense that teaching can be
learned, but someone who is not already an accomplished researcher
(evidenced by pubs & grants) isn't going to learn that as a first year
faculty. Other important aspects - on the application it is critical
to be
able to state your research experience and future agenda clearly. Put
your
research in the context of the larger questions of interest, but also
be
able to include some very specific problems that you want to tackle in
the future. Make it clear that it is *your* research and not your
mentor's.
I would list the following attributes: a) quality and innovativeness
of
research as manifested through publication: i.e. work that is of
"brick-
laying" or "boiler-plate" nature is not considered highly. Quantity
counts
in the following sense: Following the PhD, one is expected to write at
least 2 major papers annually; more is fine, but not if the quality
suffers; b) diversity of background in research and publications; c)
letters of reference; d) status or prestige of graduate alma mater and
of
referees and major professor. The above items are necessary to secure
an
interview. The following step, of course, is to present a good
seminar.
Teaching experience, to some extent, is necessary, but one's ability
in
teaching is often judged from the presentation of the seminar and
one's
interactions during the interview - e.g. willingness to teach various
courses; ideas about how to do them; interactions with graduate
students
during interview.
Top candidates show high quality in a variety of ways: solid
publication
record that indicates intellectual depth and breadth; record of grant
application experience; a clear concept of research goals and
priorities
(short and long term) and ability to effectively articulate them.
Probably the very most important thing, the thing you didn't ask about
(!)
is the level of support in the referees' letters of reommendation.
Essentially what happens here is that applicants with a reasonable
publishing record are the only ones to be looked at further. Their
teaching exconsidered important, although I expect this could change.
Otago prides
itself on its research strength, but this is really only relative to
some
other New Zealand universities (and is partly an illusion!). It is
not an
MIT or Harvard. Moreover, conditions for academics here have been
rapidly
getting worse: as state funded institutions our "productivity" is
measured
solely by staff student ratios, which have steadily been getting
worse.
Research that is immediately applicable is valued more highly by
government.
Any other comments or advice for prospective candidates?
I came to academia after 12 years in industry. It was made
abundantly
clear to me that my tenure decision in 3 years will depend on whether
I have attracted funding. Consider industry with an open mind. The
conventional wisdom is that in industry, 'they' will tell you what
kind of
research to do; in my experience, 'they' wish bright people would come
up
with good ideas about what to do. If you have good ideas that even
remotely fit with the corporate goal, you can 'propose' your idea (on
a far
less elaborate scale than NIH/NSF forms), and you are pitching ideas
to a
'granting agency' which actually has money to spend.
** Old graduate studentinstitution for the past 5 years where the
focus is molecular biology.
Speaking for myself, the most important items are letters of
recommendation, postdoctoral experience and the interview including
seminar. Your questionnaire vaguely touches on postdoctoral
experience
in its RESEARCH HISTORY section but that appears to be more
dissertation
oriented. It does not mention postdoctoral training in the ACADEMIC
HISTORY section.
Having done good research is important, but you need to be able to
make
a case that you have some special skills that will complement those
existing in your department.
Go into industry!! The academic market is lousy these days and
unlikely to
improve in the near future. The alternative is to plan on 3-5 of
post-docs, minimum. If you go that route try to hook up with as big a
name
as possible and apply for grant support on your own. Cynical? Did
you
say cynical?
Be sure to explain any anomaly in the CV, for example unaccounted-for
years, change of employer for reasons that aren't obvious, etc. If
you
failed to get tenure somewhere, say so, and indicate why. Don't whine
(the Dean hated my guts), but be specific (the department was
completely
tenured up).
Persist.
Publish, publish, publish. It's too bad, but it's today, and will only
increase in importance. I
When you get an interview, let your enthusiasm show, in whatever way
is natural for you. The worst candidates are the ones that have a
ho-hum attitude about their work. Our response - if this doesn't
interest
you, why should it interest us? You don't have to be a cheerleader,
but
make it clear that this science is what you love to do. Most of us
have the attitude that we are profs/scientists because we love it.
We're
not going to get rich or famous and its going to be hard work. If
someone doesn't appear to want to be an academic for its own merits,
our
view is that they are not going to be happy in our department.
For a position at a major research/teaching institution, a post-doc is
necessary; often 2 will help! Try to work in a slightly different
field
than the one comprising the thesis work. Also, a post-doc that
involves a
successful grant/fellowship application on the part of the individual
is
preferable. In addition, if you check the ads in Science, you will
note
that major research/teaching institutions usually do not request
transcripts from applicants. This is not the case at institutions
dedicated primarily to teaching or at state colleges or in
"conservative"
entomology departments or in applied departments.
Good training and experience in the basic courses that are taken by
the
majoritAll else being equal, a solid publication record and history of
grant
support are the most critical components in the contemporary job
market.
[what follows are some remarks written next to the academic and
teaching
history inquiries] Some teaching experience is essential! It is
imperative tohave received grants is not as importo pursue grants --
but an NSF grant does help! as important as demonstration of breadth
and depth in biology in general --
and fields related to your specialty in particular. If the diversity
of
research is too great, it can be taken as an indication of lack of
direction, and be a negative.
Get good letters of recommendation!
==> if you have any questions, email me and I will relay anything else
about the survey you may want to know.
I also wish to thank those who had taken the time to reply, your
assistance was invaluable for what is (IMHO) a very informative
document.
Coleopterologically,
Jim
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Danoff-Burg (Snow Museum, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045)
Bitnet: JIMDB at UKANVAX Internet:jimdb at kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
"Myrmecophiles-R-Us"
