On interviewing: to Skype or not?

As the academic year begins, it is also the beginning of job search season for TT applicants. In my field, the typical timeline is to have application deadlines in the Fall, with most interviews complete by Feb or Mar. Last year, I took place in some Skype pre-interview screening for the first time (it is not common in my field). Traditionally, my department has made the interview list using materials from the application file alone (see here for more details on our usual process). Then we bring in 4-5 candidates for a two day interview.

After seeing how helpful I found the Skype interviews (we used Skype--we had our candidates share their screen and give us a brief research overview), here are the pros as I see them:

• We can screen more candidates--it is hard to go from the long list to the short list just on the paper applications, and often we'd like to see more than 4 or 5 applicants
• We don't waste trip money plus 2 days of departmental time on candidates who obviously won't work (English not good enough, can't explain their research live, can't answer questions, etc)
•  It is harder to fake a presentation and answer questions than a written proposal (after some of our interviews, I have wondered if the candidate wrote the proposal)
• We can clarify points of possible research overlap/fundability/feasibility that may be unclear in the application due to the inexperience of many of our candidates in writing proposals. Naivete in a proposal may be due to moving into a new area and not being fully immersed yet, or it may be holes in thinking. 
• Skype pre-screening seemed to help less experienced candidates who are perceived as riskier choices to bring out for an interview.

It is not all positive though. There are some significant downsides too, and some of my colleagues are reluctant to add an additional step to an already long and intense process:

• It is not the norm in my field (though I think this is changing to be honest), and we may turn off good candidates 
• It is another time and work intensive thing to add to the search committee's burden (already large, since there are lots of files to read in a short time that overlaps with Fall proposal season)
• Technical glitches may influence opinions unfairly
• It can be hard to schedule time when all (or even most) of the search committee can be present at the same time as the candidate, and this is not considering time differences
• It is yet another hoop/timesink for candidates (since we asked for a brief presentation)

The bit about helping less experienced/riskier interview choices might end up more important in the end. I've noticed since joining ProdigalU that our faculty candidates (and therefore our new hires) tend to have more and more experience prior to getting a TT job. The percentage of applicants in the pool applying from their first postdoc without other experience is dropping, so in some sense, candidates are self-selecting (so if you are in your first postdoc, apply anyway!)

I am not sure this experience creep is a good thing (or even a bad thing, but it is a thing). It isn't even that we have loads of people doing multiple postdocs (we have some of this too)--many of these more experienced people just plain did something else at some point in life (like me!) before the TT. But life experience (especially writing experience) is a major advantage in a tight field, and it is hard to compare the files of a newly minted postdoc who has been in a student or trainee somewhere since age 5 to someone who has been a group leader, or a decorated educator, or an experienced science editor. With pre-screening, we can see both.

Student recruiting again

It's that time of year again. In the US, there seem to be primarily two systems for admitting students into graduate programs in science, with local variations on the theme. In one, the students are admitted to the department, and select an advisor after starting the program. This may happen with or without rotations through different groups. In the other, students apply to the department and professors select students from the applications that meet admission requirements. Students are then given conditional admission, with the condition that they have to join the group (or one of the groups) they've been selected for. In the Prodigal Department, we admit students to our program, and they join groups after arrival without rotations, so we are entering the busy season for student recruitment.

This year, I will be recruiting hard for new students, as I've had a bunch of recent graduations. My group is small, funding is tight, and I can't really afford a mistake here. I used to do a hard sell when I first started, but now I mostly look for enthusiasm and scientific curiosity. I am never offended when people don't choose my group, because I am well aware that there are different strokes for different folks, and the last thing that I want is someone who does not want to be there in my group. If someone is not excited by their project on Day 1, how will it be on Day 1095?

In addition, I've been thinking about this post at Mistress of the Animals and subsequent comments about a bad PI-student match. There is a big disconnect in the comments, with some people saying that the responsibility lies mostly with the PI (poor mentorship and/or lack of training), and others saying that the responsibility lies mostly with student (poor choice in group and/or not proactive when the situation wasn't working). Like all situations, the truth is probably a little of both, which is why I won't take a student if I don't feel I can work well with them.

With that discussion in mind, each year, I am surprised by the number of incoming students who have already chosen a group from afar. Some choose just from a website, the publication record, and a phone call. Other choose from fairly brief interactions at events for accepted students. Even those who visit ProdigalU separately typically spend just part of one day checking things out, which is a short time to gather enough information to decide if you can work with someone, especially since everyone is likely on their best behavior.

I am pretty sure that everyone who is admitted to our program (which means they have at least a little research experience) has been told that they need to consider the whole group before making a decision and not just the sexy project, the reputation of the PI, someone else's previous experience, or the placement of group alumni. However, these are the only things that people who show up at ProdigalU already set to join a group can use to make their choice. Most of my colleagues who pick up students ahead of time like this have much larger groups than I do, and can more readily afford a mismatch.

So what do I tell my own undergrads when they head off to grad school? Pick a project that excites you. Don't worry too much about how prominent the researcher is as long as they are publishing regularly in good journals. Make sure your future groupmates are people you can work with. Ask about expectations: work hours, progress, expected time in the program, publications and how they will be handled, etc to make sure you and your PI at least start out on the same page. It is NOT crazy to want to know ahead of time about expected work hours and time off.

The post tenure blahs

This is another self-indulgent post. When I was on the TT, every so often someone in the academic blogosphere would post something about feeling kind of off/unsettled a few years post tenure. At the time, I could not really understand what they meant, being in the thick of the tenure grind myself. Now I am there, and I know what they mean.

As academic scientists, we spend most of our pre-tenure careers forward looking: as undergrads, we look for grad programs. As grad students, we look for postdocs. As postdocs, we look for a TT/research position. In my case, I took a pause here and worked at National Lab for a while, but there we had our own versions of forward looking. Once on the TT, we focus on tenure. And then we have reached the place we have been working towards since we were 18 years old in one way or another.

The first year, it is all relief. Maybe on sabbatical or doing sabbatical planning. After that first year, it begins to sink in. I've reached my goal. Now what? A whole career spanning 20+ years since high school looking for the next gold ring, and now there are no more rings to grab. At the same time, it is not like post-tenure life is stress-free. I still have huge funding pressure, and still have to push out proposals and manuscripts. It is still high stakes--I have students who depend on me, and less benefit of the doubt since I am no longer a newbie.

I am not ungrateful, bored, or unhappy in my job. I love my research, have great students, and awesome colleagues. I (mostly!) enjoy coming to work every day. It is just kind of weird and unsettling to NOT be seeking the next gold ring after all these years.

Why things don't change

Ii is kind of a good news/bad news thing, if you value civil behavior and a safe and fair working environment for all. The good news: Christian Ott, another unrepentant sexual harasser is no longer a professor. The bad news: he resigned on his own under pressure, since Caltech didn't think that violating the terms of his suspension by contacting one of the students he harassed, despite any required "rehabilitative training", disqualified him from being professor.

While it is surely a sign of progress that this wasn't swept under the rug completely by Caltech like it would have been even 10 years ago, one of the students has already stated that she is leaving academia due to the lame response by the University and other stars in the field. Tolerance of awful behavior by "geniuses" has a chilling effect on people choosing and staying in STEM fields, especially academia. Things may be better, but the improvement is glacial.