Archive for: October, 2014

How do you structure a job talk?

Oct 28 2014 Published by under [Education&Careers]

Many people applying for academic jobs this season are well into the process. Interviews are happening across the country and more are on the way. If you're putting together a talk for an on campus interview, you'll want to make sure you're communicating to your audience the information they'll need to make a decision. Obviously, it's not all going to come down to your talk, but many faculty will only see you during this time.

The most critical piece, IMO, is figuring out whether you need to include a full Future Directions section in your feature talk. I've seen it done several ways, but what you present on the work you plan to do at the hiring institution is obviously the key. In my current job, the future directions was a separate talk. I still gave a 5 minute compressed version for those who wouldn't see the second talk, but it was just a teaser.

If you're asked to put everything in one talk, I would roughly break it down like:

30 min of highlighting what you have done

20 min of talking about what you will do

10 min for questions

People often say that their completed work is either too much or too diverse to cover in 30 or 40 or 50 minutes. This is good and probably why you are being interviewed. However, it is up to YOU to create a narrative about who you are and what you bring to the table. What led you from one training environment to another*? What is the flow to your science and what you have accomplished? What are you going to take from that and apply to your new awesome lab?

Your audience should come away with a feel for the flow and trajectory of your career. That is your take home for them. You want them to think "Wow, she did all that and is ready to really take off on an original path!"

Look at the structure of your talk and make sure that is front and foremost.

 

 

 

* Or, what is the best possible spin you can apply post hoc?

18 responses so far

Can one grant even get its own science done?

Oct 24 2014 Published by under [Education&Careers]

The current issues with federal science funding are well documented. Anyone familiar with the science blogging world or running their own lab will be way too familiar with the downturn in support for science in the US. But even before the overall funding decline, there's been a stagnation that is really catching up with us.

Drugmonkey has talked about the static modular budget at NIH. Briefly, the budget for your average NIH R01 hasn't changed in years, whereas all the costs have increased. Consumables, salary, tuition, travel, services... they are all more expensive than the were 10 years ago. Substantially.

NSF is similarly impacted. A big difference here is that indirect rates are calculated into the overall NSF proposal budget. Guess what else has risen 10% since I started my position? So, we have costs of everything climbing and a static budget. The reality is that we can't afford the same work we could 5 and 10 years ago. Period.

When writing a proposal there's pressure to keep the budget down. As such, we whittle away (often negotiating for crumbs with collaborators on the proposal). Once funded, the budget is almost certainly cut by some amount, further reducing the buying power. NIH grants can even be cut substantially during the funded period!

But, in the increasingly competitive environment, does anybody dial the science in their proposals back? Hell. No. The demand is higher than ever.

So here is the reality of running a lab right now: You need multiple sources of funding that can offset one another. I am watching people taking the one grant-at-a-time approach and falling short in big ways. Without substantial resources from somewhere that allow you to add personnel or leverage grant funds, completing the work as written gets harder by the day.

Think broadly, my friends. Collaborate. Leverage funds against departmental, college or university resources. Apply for local money that will allow you to offload a salary for a bit. Be on the lookout for these additional pots of money, because a single grant can easily collapse under its own weight these days.

6 responses so far

What do you want to know about writing a preproposal?

Oct 22 2014 Published by under [Education&Careers]

I've been tasked by my Research Office to give a presentation on writing NSF preproposals. This is a topic I've written about before, but I am curious what types of questions are out there. If you were attending such a presentation, what information would you hope to hear about?

6 responses so far

Despite the name, Teaching Assistantships support the research mission

Oct 08 2014 Published by under [Education&Careers], Uncategorized

For a typical Biology Department, TAs are a critical resource. Teaching Assistants run most of the labs in the department, and in some cases run recitations or help grade exams in large classes. In most places I have been the TAs are limited in the number of hours they can work in a given week, usually in the range of 20h/wk. TA support comes with pay that covers the stipend, and importantly, the tuition and fringe of the student for the semesters they are teaching. In that sense, their major professor does not need to support them off grants while they TA, but their research time is limited by the contact hours, lab prep and grading.

Since many biology departments are largely geared towards NSF funding, TA support allows for more students to be involved in a project than can be supported directly from a single grant. In my college, for instance, the Dean's office will match a semester of TA support for every semester or RA support a PI has on a grant. This allow us to be a little flexible in our budgeting, since the actually dollar amount of federal grants has not climbed appreciably in quite some time, whereas inflation and institutional overhead rates (which IS counted into the budget of an NSF grant) have increased, unabated.

Therefore, we have graduate students performing an important role in the teaching mission of a department as a way to directly supplement the research mission of the department.

And this is where it can get tricky, folks. Because not every class runs the same way and not every professor understands the big picture. If you think of TAs as graduate students who are teaching to supplement their research time, you will have very different expectations than if you see a TA as a junior teacher there to relieve teaching burden from the professor. There will be different task and time expectations and the inequity of these across the curriculum can be significant. As graduate students, it's important to know what the expectations are when you agree to take on a new class.

But more importantly, departments need to ensure that there are cultural norms for these expectations. Is it expected that TAs should work their full time allotment every week? If not, what is a reasonable load? After all, the grad students are there to get their degree, not bear the burden of your teaching load.

EDIT: I forgot an important point that I was reminded of on Twitter: TA's are paid for at the university level by overhead dollars. Thus they are paid for by research to support the research mission.

13 responses so far