Skip to main content

Ask A Prof: To Post or not to Post?




I'm going to prototype a new series, which may spawn a separate blog, called Ask a Professor. The idea is that I get tons of questions about careers in science, and often I get the same questions from different people. So I figure I can broadcast the advice I can offer. Any question for which I can't give a good answer, I know lots of people who I can ask, and we can learn together in those cases.


IfA last-year grad student Brendan Bowler asks: "To post, or not to post; that is the question. That is, to the Rumor Mill.  Does it have any actual influence (either beneficial or harmful) on the  decision-making process of fellowship committees?"

One thing I can say right off the bat is that this question stirs a lot of strong and passionate opinions among professors (and postdocs, and students). For this question, I think I'll present my own opinion and then revisit the question after talking to some other profs. Also, if you have a strong opinion one way or the other, please sound off in the comments or send me an email!

My answer is based on my strong belief that it is important to market yourself as a scientist. I used to get uncomfortable with the concept of self-marketing, all wrinkling my nose and feeling the urge to take a shower after using that sort of language. But my opinion changed after reading Marc Kuchner's book on the topic, Marketing for Scientists. I'm certainly a fan of this book and I recommend you check it out. 

The basic idea put forth in the book is that as a job-seeker, you are offering a product (yourself, your skill-set and accomplishments) to someone who may give you a job in exchange for what you have to offer. It's simply an exchange of benefits, like almost every other human-human interaction. If I, as a prof, post a job ad for a postdoc to help me with my planet survey, I need someone with a specific set of skills. I also need someone who will integrate themselves quickly into my group and enhance our science. If a job candidate can demonstrate that they can bring these benefits to me and my group, then I give them gainful employment. 

A fellowship program or faculty search committee is looking for a similar beneficial exchange. They want someone who is excellent in many dimensions, ranging from productivity, quality of science, the ability to write strong proposals, a good communicator, diversity and leadership. Say what you will about perusing the rumor mill, but the people who light up the job listings every year---the ones pulling in Hubbles and Sagans and Einsteins left and right---well, these are people for whom the astronomy community has come to a firm consensus on (or at least several independent review panels have come to the same conclusion). These people, by virtue of getting many strong postdoc offers are prima facie excellent job candidates.

Now, of course, there are many excellent researchers who don't light up the Rumor Mill. So I'm not advocating that search committees base their decisions on the people who show up on the Mill, nor am I suggesting that they do. This would be like using your data as both your prior and your likelihood: you'll quickly converge to a solution, but the solution is likely incorrect because the logical process used was improper. And I strongly believe that search committees know and understand this, and therefore do not use the Rumor Mill to make any major decisions. 

But might an individual on one of those committees use last year's Rumor Mill to identify good candidates that should be in the pool? Sure, why not. But once an individual is identified in that manner, or any other,  rest assured that the committee will get on the phone and call their colleagues and ask their opinions about Dr. Rumor-Mill-Star. Also, people filling seminar, colloquium and science meeting schedules might very well look through last year's Rumor Mill for the brightest young talent to invite in for a talk. I've sat on colloquium committees, and I admit that I glanced at the Rumor Mill for young talent outside of my field. 

Based on all of this, it is my opinion that one go right ahead and splash their name all over the Mill should they get fellowship offers, or short-listed for their first professor position. First, it's just good marketing. Second, if you get lots of offers, you should take this moment to shine and revel in the accolades. This sort of positive feedback is hard to come by in astronomy, so take it while you can get it and hold your head high, rather than shoving your A+ exam into your backpack before anyone sees. Note, however, that those individuals looking to switch institutions in a faculty swap may not want this information floating around. 

Finally, posting gets valuable knowledge out to an information-starved portion of our community. Kudos to the various fellowship offices that post their short lists and offer lists to the Mill! Those poor applicants anxiously awaiting news, any news, surely appreciate the knowledge that there has been an offer and to whom it was made. This is the primary reason I'm a supporter of the Rumor Mill. 

Oh, and one last note: yes, there will be jealous people. Those people might even post obnoxious things to the Mill about your achievements. But that's their problem. There will always be haters, so let 'em hate. The people in the community who care about you will be thrilled to learn of your fellowship offer. 

Comments

CyndiF said…
I never made up my mind about this, but my name has always appeared on its own (usually after someone checks the seminar list). You are correct that self-marketing is important. I was held back by an old-fashioned false modesty, I think.

Popular posts from this blog

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:


It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…

The Bright Line is not Monotonic

The anthology of myths commonly known as America rests upon the notion that history is linear. In the past people in this country ignorantly did bad things to other people. But thanks to the passage of time, we can now "let the past to be the past," because today we live in a time when things have gotten much better. Furthermore, any problem that our society faces in the present will inevitably be solved as "the old guard" dies off and a new generation of better people takes their place. 
Of course this story isn't told so simply or explicitly. But the assumption lurks beneath the other stories we, as Americans, tell ourselves and each other. The myth certainly undergirds the notion that racism is a thing of the past, and that today we inhabit a "post-racial" world in which all people, regardless of race have equal access to betterment, dignity and happiness. We are lulled into beliving that at some point in the mid to late 1960's, a wise reveren…