Dr. Isis recently received an e-mail asking about the process of successfully identifying and obtaining post-doctoral positions:
I'd like to try something new, which means applying to labs that are not in my field, so not known personally by my PI, and not generally at the same meetings I've been attending as a student. It also means a lot of background reading to prepare for the interview. So I was wondering if you have any tips to share on how to send an application that stands out (besides the totally hot science I've been working on) when you come from another field, and how to prepare for the interviews once you get them... do you try to read all the papers from the lab? The recent reviews in the new field? Publications that make some link between your current research and the new field? Should you already have a plan for the questions you'd like to work on (or do you assume that the lab already has someone working on the obvious questions arising from the recent publications in the field and try to see what is new in the lab when you get there?)
In addition, Scicurious has expressed an interest in how to find post-doc positions. Well, Comrade PhysioProf is here to throw down, albeit not in hot shoes!
At the broadest level, let's divide this topic up into two main issues: (1) What are PIs looking for in post-doc applicants? This is important to the applicant in making herself as appealing as possible and maximizing her chances of getting the position she wants. (2) What should the post-doc be looking for in choosing a lab to obtain her post-doctoral training in? And I should say at the outset, that this discussion is limited to those seeking post-docs in academic labs with the ultimate goal of a position as an academic PI. You wanna know about industry or other non-academic career paths, you gotta ask someone else.
OK. What are PIs looking for in post-doc candidates? Well, this is not at all a simple question, as it depends on many factors.
One important factor is the career stage of the PI. For very early-stage PIs, if you received your PhD from a US institution in a field that is even remotely relevant to that of the PI, you are pretty much guaranteed to receive an offer. This is because brand-new PIs are competing for post-docs with huge-ass famous motherfuckers, and mostly have to make do with applicants who earned their PhDs from foreign institutions. The more established and well-known the PI is, the less stringent the competition for post-doctoral positions.
Another important factor is the way that the PI's lab is organized and the way that the PI likes to do things. In some labs, there is extreme division of labor: some trainees do molecular genetics, some do cell culture, some do physiology, some do biochemistry, and all interdisciplinary projects move forward via orchestration of monolithically expert individuals doing their single thing as part of a collaboration. These PIs are generally looking to bring in post-docs who are already experts at a particular technique used in the lab and can just sit the fuck down and start churning out data. So, if you are highly trained as a lipid biochemist and this PI is looking for a lipid biochemist, then w00t!
At the other end of the spectrum are labs that are looking to bring in bright, excited people without any highly specific technical expertise in particular, but who can participate in a vibrant intellectual milieu and function as colleagues. (Gee, can you guess how Comrade PhysioProf's lab works?) In this kind of lab, people have to learn new techniques before they can start generating data, and each trainee generally learns at least a handful of quite disparate technical approaches, e.g., biochemistry and physiology, or molecular genetics and behavior, or a combination of three of them, or whatthefuckever.
Aside: A job candidate for a faculty position was giving her talk and it was a very beautiful combination of biochemistry and electrophysiology, and the talk was well done. During the question period, someone asked a relatively technical question about some of the biochemistry data. The candidates answer? "You shouldn't ask me. I didn't do those experiments. The other post-doc did." BZZZTTTT!!!! Wrong answer!
So, how do you make yourself an appealing candidate to each of those two kinds of labs? In the first case, what is important is demonstration of your pre-existing technical prowess. Reading a bunch of articles published by the lab you're interested in joining and engaging intellectually when you visit is not particularly important. The lab is not looking for a colleague; they are looking for a data-producing entity.
In the second case, what is important is demonstrating that you will be engaged intellectually in the scientific enterprise of the lab. This does not necessarily mean having read all the papers published by the lab and having penetrating questions about them. But it does mean being able to carry on an interesting conversation about the work you did as a grad student (or previous post-doc) and the ability to at least express a credible interest in the work done in the potential post-doc lab.
Another aside: When writing cover letters or statements of interest, copy pasting entire phrases, clauses, or sentences from the lab Web site, like "I am very interested in the {verbatim lab sales pitch from Web site} work being performed in your lab" is a total negative. Better to say nothing than to say this. Good PIs are not interested in copy-pasters.
OK. Now how about from the perspective of the post-doc? How do you decide what labs you are interested in? As with analyzing what labs are looking for in post-docs, there are multiple dimensions to what a post-doc is looking for in a lab.
First, do you want to train in a relatively young--or even brand-new--lab, or in an established, famous, or even "mega" lab? In a young lab, there will obviously be fewer trainees. This has the feature of giving you a lot of face time with the PI. If the PI is a good mentor, an interesting scientist, and a fun person to interact with, this can be fucking outstanding. If they are a control-freak asshole, however, it can suck major assage.
Under the best of circumstances, such as experienced by Comrade PhysioProf in his post-doc in a brand-new lab, the post-doc/PI relationship can be one of a close collaboration, with a layer of mentorship on top. You will have access to all of the PI's brilliant ideas, constant feedback on your work, and will also see up-close the good (and bad) moves the new PI makes as a junior faculty member.
Under the worst of circumstances, the junior PI was a decent post-doc herself, but is simply incapable of directing a research team, mentoring, etc. Then you're fucked. So, bottom line with junior PIs: post-docs are taking a big risk, but with the possibility of a big reward.
In an established lab, there is much less risk for the post-doc: by talking to people and beating the bushes for reputational opinions of the PI, you can find out what you are in for. Advantages can be that there is already a vibrant scientific milieu in the lab that keeps on humming even when the PI is not around (which is much more than in a junior lab). Alternatively, everyone hates each other and the atmosphere is toxic.
Other advantages are that techniques, equipment, reagents, etc are already in place, operational, and ready for your use, and there is likely to be more technical support staff to do relative "scutwork" than in a junior lab. The senior PI is also already well-known in the field/subfield, and so they have swingage they can deploy to your benefit when you begin to seek independence. Junior PI can elicit "Who!?!?" in faculty job search committees. An interesting flip side to this is that coming from a big-ass established lab, search committees can wonder whether the post-doc truly established a research program in the mentor's lab--thus providing evidence that they will do so again when they start their own lab--or rather was just implementing a prepackaged project handed to them and directed by the PI. Post-docs who manage to be very successful in a junior lab are perceived as being much more likely to have already demonstrated the ability to establish a research program.
Now, what about the subject matter of the post-doc? You can choose to continue to address the same sorts of scientific questions you did as a grad student, albeit in a different organism or using a different set of techniques. You can choose to address different scientific questions, albeit using the same organism and/or same set of techniques. Or you can choose to go completely in a new direction and address different sorts of questions in a different organism using different techniques.
Obviously, the closer you hew technically and conceptually to your PhD research training, the easier it will be to hit the ground running and begin to work independently in the lab as quickly as possible. But by the same token, you will also be expanding your technical and conceptual armamentarium much less than if you strike out in new areas. One thing to keep in mind about this decision is that faculty search committees are impressed by broad diverse training, as it bodes well for the ability to generate a vibrant independent research program that is not just trodding the exact same path as one's former mentors.
So, there are lots of things to think about in choosing a post-doc, beyond the obvious: that you be actually deeply interested in the research that goes on in the lab you join. I am sure that I left things out, so I hope that Dr. Isis's readers will chime in with more thoughts.
Education & Careers
Life Science
Comments
ITYM s/less/more/
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | January 7, 2009 6:24 PM
Thanks. Fixed.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 7, 2009 6:29 PM
1. Pick the places and people you want to work with.
2. Find out what each lab's hold up is. This is the phase that consistently holds back their productivity. This could be anything from grant writing, logistics, patient recruitment, specific techniques, data analyses, or writing papers effectively.
3. Make sure you can conclusively demonstrate to them that you are better than they are at 1 or 2 of these bottlenecks.
Isis speaks from a laboratory bench perspective where she wants data producing machines. However, in some places the problem isn't data collection, in places I've worked it's data analyses and especially getting stuff actually published. And grant writing is needed everywhere.
So, what are you good at that they need?
PS Dear Dear Isis please tell me you're joking when you say "...mostly have to make do with applicants who earned their PhDs from foreign institutions"
PhDs from non-US institutions are often far superior to US PhDs. I'd love you to tell somebody from Oxford, Cambridge, Tokyo, the Sorbonne, AustNatU, Max Planck, Karolinska et al that they were 'making do'.
Posted by: anon | January 7, 2009 6:29 PM
"What are PIs looking for in post-doc candidates?"
I thought the answer to this was "people who come with funding and, ideally, aren't assholes.
Posted by: Becca | January 7, 2009 6:32 PM
Nice post--I'll have to bookmark this post to come back to in a few years.
During graduate school I sat through a fair number of post-doc and faculty candidate talks and I just want to echo the Goddess's statement (paraphrased): know your shit when you go to give your talk. Nothing turns people off (in my experience) than when asked a fundamental question about the work being presented (either the actual work--experimentally, computationally, etc--or about the *major*, *landmark* related literature) and the answer is "uhhh I don't know". Worse still is the addition to that of "...the other so-and-so did it." Who says that for a job talk anyway? Also, when the mudphudder hears "I don't know" to fundamental questions that's akin to smelling blood and when he tends to go in for the kill. What?!?! Someone's got to put an end to it...
Conversely, if you know your shit about the fundamentals of your work and are also quick on your feet to give intelligent answers, which are based in part on cleverness and in part on knowledge, to "thought" questions, then you will be the bomb and that will work greatly in your favor regardless of whether you are interviewing for a postdoc in your field or in a different field.
Thinking back now, the best postdoc candidate we ever hosted for a talk at our lab was from a completely different field altogether and not even from an incredibly well-know lab. But her bad-ass knowledge and intelligence made it obvious to everyone in the lab that she would be a huge asset to have around.
Posted by: mudphudder | January 7, 2009 6:33 PM
Oh yes, and what Becca said too! Don't be an asshole! I guess that rules out mudphudder... ;-)
Posted by: mudphudder | January 7, 2009 6:35 PM
Ahh not Isis. CPP posted.
Posted by: anon | January 7, 2009 6:39 PM
Nice post PP.
Couple other things:
To get a postdoc -
1) check the job boards in your field.
2) check for fellowship opportunities where you get a chunk of change and you can pick the PI to work with OR the PI picks you and you get a chunk of change to work on your stuff in the PIs lab
3) network network network network.... network.
If you are short-listed or offered a postdoc -
1) go visit. I don't give a rat's ass that you can't afford the trip. GO VISIT. Some will pay to interview you on site, others not so much. GO VISIT. You really need to get a feel for the atmosphere and how you will gel with the group. And write the trip cost off on your taxes as job search expenses.
2) ask about the PI. and I mean dig. deeeeep. Ask previous postdocs and students, ask collaborators.
3) get the offer in WRITING. no deal unless it's written. stone, preferred of course, but paper with some official shit included at the top is minimum.
4) ask about benefits. ask about travel to meetings. if the PI is stingy about stuff, that might be a bad sign. ask about current funding/cash flow.
For me personally, my postdoc was a disaster. The PI decided to go a different route with me when I got there, and if I could have turned around and packed up in the first week, I would have. I should have visited the lab, but I was a broke grad student who was also young and stupid.
another shining example of my dimwitness (learn from my fuckup and don't do what I did!) - because I didn't hear back from the PI after a month (it was an email application), I thought the PI looked at my CV and laughed hysterically, considering she's a supreme goddess herself at one of those "leafy schools." If you apply, and don't hear back, EMAIL the PI a quick note after a month asking about the status of the applications. ***Don't assume you got canned.*** After I accepted another position (the one mentioned above), the PI called to offer me the leafy one. dammit the hell. I took myself to the woodshed.
Posted by: jc | January 7, 2009 7:15 PM
Dearest PhysioProf, this is a fantastic post! I knew your expertise in this area made you exactly the right person to address this question and facilitate the discussion. Thanks for holding it down for me.
But, if you ever decide to cross the great internet divide and blog around these parts again, PradaProf, I expect it to be done in hot shoes. I don't makes the rulez.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 7, 2009 7:25 PM
...
Despite this brief . . .'burst'
...his profanity index was really depressed, approx 0.5%. Easily calculated, believe me ...I am not that obsessed with PP's verbiage.
Outstanding fucking post.
...tom...
Posted by: ...tom... | January 7, 2009 7:40 PM
Nicely done, PP - you totally nailed it in this post. W00t!!
At the other end of the spectrum are labs that are looking to bring in bright, excited people without any highly specific technical expertise in particular, but who can participate in a vibrant intellectual milieu and function as colleagues.
Yep - you nailed how I want my lab to operate as well.
Here's a follow-up question for you that is a little off-topic and should probably be addressed separately ... as a new PI trying to establish her own lab, how does one go about recruiting a postdoc? I'm not asking for myself you understand ... I'm asking for ... ummm ... a friend.
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 7, 2009 7:52 PM
From best sources to worst:
(1) Rejects from more established PIs in your department and/or field.
(2) Meeting people at meetings.
(3) Posting advertisements. (This is the absolute worst. 99.9% of the responses will be from completely unqualified people in China or India.)
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 7, 2009 8:05 PM
This is just what I needed PP! Now all I need is something on "how to network without making yourself look like a tool".
I definitely agree, visiting a postdoc opportunity is a MUST. You need to see the space, see if they really have space for you, and really meet the other people in the lab. You want to make sure you're not walking into a vat of acid. The general stuff.
So, I got a general call for CVs from a BigWig in my field. I sent in a cover letter and my CV (my advisor would have killed me if I hadn't), and got a polite email from him saying he remembered meeting me and that he got it. But since then, nothing. Should I make contact, or just assume BigWig found someone far more talented than I? Is there an expcted response?
Posted by: scicurious | January 7, 2009 8:08 PM
With the caveat that I have not yet had a post-doc, but have talked with multitudes of those who have:
Talk to the current grad students in the lab as well as the PI, who will give you a good idea of the work environment, pace of the lab, and general expectations of the PI. Pick the PI and lab first, then worry about the project - there is hot science to be found nearly everywhere.
Posted by: Miss Outlier | January 7, 2009 8:12 PM
Here is the only secret you need: (1) People like other people who make them feel smart and admired. (2) Inviting people to tell you about what they give a shit about and listening actively makes them feel smart and admired.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 7, 2009 8:13 PM
YES!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 7, 2009 8:16 PM
Thank you CPP for this awesome post, I absolutely loved it!
I am now delurking to ask the following.
So I know I want to work in a lab scenario #2.. but how do I know what I am getting into?
Will it be evident from the job listing? Will it be obvious when one visits the lab?
What about if one (i.e. me) is applying to one institution because she is limited geographically (this is the only institution near where my husband's current tenure track job is that does serious kick ass research in my field of interest)... and more specifically, one is applying to a particular postdoc program whereby qualified applicants will be circulated to a group of professors involved in the program and then one interviews with the interested professors.... how do I tell then? Should I be asking tough questions?
And one more thing.. in your comments, you mentioned that a job listing was the worst way to recruit postdocs (OMG, freaking out here since all I have been doing IS perusing job postings!)... so how *else* is there to apply for postdocs as my advisor, though a medium wig in his field, knows no one at the university I am applying to and therefore networking is out of the question?
Any suggestions would be awesome!
Posted by: bella | January 7, 2009 8:27 PM
I reiterate the various comments to get the real deal scoop on the PI from somebody before you join. I asked, but only got cagey answers, and MAN did I not know the half of it. It was a nearly career-ending nightmare at times. It all turned out okay in the end for me, but it might not have if I hadn't been lucky in other areas...
Posted by: Arlenna | January 7, 2009 8:37 PM
I've let my thought be known on how important a post-doc is to pick correctly. To me, it was a critical time in my career where I really became marketable as a potential faculty member. Not to make it sound so cut and dry, but you are selling your potential based on your expereince. I agree with CPP that going with a young PI can have a huge pay off, but I may be biased. It is such a great time to explore your limits as a scientist that it would be a shame to waste those years being a cog in a machine, but to each their own.
Posted by: prof-like substance | January 7, 2009 8:52 PM
Uh, wait a second ... I'm not drinking all that much but I missed the story as to why CPP is posting under the goddess header. Has Isis bought out his option from DrugMonkey. Is there some way I can hire a similar free agent? And where the hell is the Prada pic???
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | January 7, 2009 8:57 PM
You've found me out, Abel. This move to teh SBz was all an elaborate scheme to steal PP from DM. It's a naughty little triangle I look to establish.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 7, 2009 9:09 PM
What? I knew CPP wrote the post--that's who I was referring to as the Goddess. Hahaha!
Much love for CPP. :-)
Posted by: mudphudder | January 7, 2009 9:57 PM
HA HA HA, mudphudder!!! I do wonder how many people are going to skim this thinking Isis has lost her mind.
In all seriousness, I think one of PP's areas of expertise is the mentoring of more junior scientists. It seemed very natural to bring him in to facilitate the action.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 7, 2009 10:03 PM
I agree with CPP that going with a young PI can have a huge pay off, but I may be biased. It is such a great time to explore your limits as a scientist that it would be a shame to waste those years being a cog in a machine, but to each their own.
Me too, but I'm probably also biased. I had two (concurrent) postdoc mentors - one had been established for a long time and the other was well-funded but still building his lab. The differences between the labs were very apparent as the former just wanted me to do everything his way and wasn't keen on anything I had to add whereas the latter was big on incorporating our existing skills, encouraged us to learn and try new things and was very big on student/trainees developing their own projects within the overall framework of the lab. Eventually, it came down to being a cog in a machine vs a junior collaborator/partner. Some people work better in the former but IMO the latter prepares better independent investigators and potential junior faculty.
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 7, 2009 10:04 PM
i don't know exactly how, but i've stumbled upon some total kick ass network contacts. whether it's dumb luck or that i'm really good at making people feel good about themselves/what they do, i don't care. i'll take what i can get.
here's my question: to maintain a network contact, how often do you make some kind of contact with them? i'm trying to find a good balance. i try to send semiannual updates with my positive news and ask how they are doing (usually i'll include things like "i just read your recent paper on xyz" where applicable, to note that i am keeping up with their work), but i would like to hear what others think.
Posted by: leigh | January 7, 2009 10:15 PM
Leigh, that seems like a very reasonable frequency of contact. And, if they continue to respond, keep them in the "still could interested" pile.
One thing I don't think PP addressed this in the post, but I think the timing of looking for a postdoc is important. In my field it is typical to start job hunting (or at least putting the feelers out) a year or so before you plan to defend. That way funding isssues and what-not can be discussed well in advance. I don't know if this is traditional for other fields though...
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 7, 2009 10:25 PM
Isis -- UPDATE: numbers. W00t11!1!1!
Leigh @ 25 -- go to meetings. email your newest papers (high impact stuff, stuff the email list might be interested in) and keep your network in 'the know' - yes, it's tooting your horn. get used to it. don't be a pest though.
re: isis' timing @ 26 --
look up latest funded grants on nsf fastlane and see the projects that PIs will be starting soon. they will certainly be hiring postdocs for those $$$$$$$$ projects. ask your phd advisor to ask around who got funded in the latest round for grants that don't have publicly available websites of awards and PIs. you can certainly hitch a ride on these kinds of postdoc opps since MOST of them aren't publicly advertised (like on a listserver or job board) - postdocs get hired alot by word of mouth.
hey PIT -- for your, *cough* friend --
The PIs I know ask other PIs "if they have any live ones" in their labs and some even do swaps of a sort so they can train different skills and gain new skills between labs. When the PIs get invited for talks elsewhere, they also ask other PIs about possible postdoc material that might be interested. So students, when you have a visiting PI giving a talk, be bold and ASK FOR A JOB! (but not DURING the talk!) So visiting PIs, when you are out and about, be on the prowl for talent.
Posted by: jc | January 7, 2009 10:43 PM
I know #27!!!! I was so thrilled by this post I thought you all deserved an extra special treat -- numbers. Do you know how long it took me to figure this shit out? HA HA HA!
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 7, 2009 10:49 PM
#28 -- I suspect your evil twin prancing around in your digs wearing the crocs did it.
Posted by: jc | January 7, 2009 10:51 PM
My evil twin??? Trust me, the world can only handle one Isis!
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 7, 2009 10:58 PM
How long do post-docs typically last in your field(s)? I'm starting to look for post-docs and have been thinking about the merits of junior faculty vs. established mentors (in fact I have a half-written post about it). Post-docs in my field almost never last more than 3 years and it's still not super common to do more than one. Frankly, I'm not all that excited about the idea of taking a post-doc with someone who's only 2-3 years ahead of me, although I see your points about benefits of a newer lab. If new faculty in your field are typically 5-6 years out of grad school, it doesn't seem as strange.
Posted by: ecogeofemme | January 7, 2009 11:28 PM
Thanks Isis and CPP for the great post.
I agree that knowing YOUR stuff is the major way to make a good impression, as well as that all important attentive listening and discussion, but all that comes AFTER you get the interview (face to face at the potential postdoc locale of course). How about getting that interview (and how to approach the will they pay or not question?) versus getting filtered into the junk folder?
Oh, and I agree with anon @ #3... "non-US" PhDs smacks of nasty stereotyping. The non-US world is a pretty diverse place, some parts of which, some would argue, train their PhDs much more vigorously! I've worked with many of them, in fact.
Posted by: Jenn, PhD | January 8, 2009 4:58 AM
Post-docs who have trained in places like that is not what I was talking about.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 8, 2009 6:37 AM
Great post, will be of help.
But I can't get over the thing with the Phds who 'earned their PhDs from foreign institutions'. Proper (hot!) science and good scientists do exist outside the US of A!
Posted by: Fia | January 8, 2009 8:13 AM
I hope you don't mind me posting this, but I work for the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and we did a booklet on this a few months ago. An online version of it can be found through scribd.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2544488/Staffing-the-Lab-Perspectives-from-Both-Sides-of-the-Bench
I'd be happy to send anyone a copy free of charge.
Posted by: Russ | January 8, 2009 8:23 AM
Not to speak for CPP here, but I don't think he meant all non-US institutions, as he stated @ #33. He is likely referring to the onslaught of "Hi, I have a PhD in random field not even close to yours but think that your advertised opportunity in (copy/paste) would suit me well. Thank you. Signed - Individual in country I want to leave to get into yours" emails that I know I get as soon as I post an openning. These "broad net" emails tend to come from outside the US, but not exclusively.
Wait, I though Isis WAS the evil twin.
Posted by: prof-like substance | January 8, 2009 8:39 AM
So, I couldn't help but think about this as I was trying to pick out a pair of shoes for the day. PP, are you saying that this means one should only read as much as it took to get interested in a lab and then that's all that's necessary?
I certainly appreciate that what is published is certainly not necessarily reflective of what they are doing at that moment, but if you are applying for a particularly competitive post doc don't you think having read some of their work shows that you are serious about that lab?
[If the answer really is "no" then, shit, Dr. Isis did wayyyyyyyy too much work!]
Posted by: Dr. Isis | January 8, 2009 9:19 AM
Great post and great discussion! I would also add three points:
1. Make sure you find out the duration, funding contingencies, and *job placement* of postdocs in the lab. These concerns are familiar to grad students but do not go away for postdocs. These can be issues for both small labs headed by a junior professor or in a large-to-mega lab. How long has the longest post-doc dragged on and why? When was the last time a postdoc was booted and why (funding, lack of results, etc)? How long will the money be there for you absent you landing a fellowship (particularly important to ask in this time of ever-shifting budgets)? Does this professor generally push postdocs out the door or hang on to them to the bitter end? And most importantly, where have postdocs from this lab/department gone on to? How many interviews did they get when applying for faculty positions? Does the PI write them good letters, make calls for them, talk them up at conferences, etc?
2. IMHO, a terrific scenario is one in which you apply to faculty positions with a fantastic (dare I say, hot?) and novel research plan that assimilates different skills/training acquired in PhD and postdoc. That is, after you talk not only do they think "that is some hot science right there" but they also think "there is nobody on earth more suited to that hot science than this candidate." You get to design your research direction, so get some training that could integrate with your PhD training in that kind of 1+1=3 way. This usually means going afield of your 100% comfort zone, but it will pay off. I applied this year, have had multiple offers, and the primary compliment I got on faculty interviews was that it was clear I integrated my PhD and postdoc fields into something completely new and I was well-suited to execute it.
3. In this vein, if there is an area of science you have always thought was just so amazing, this is your last chance to "break in." Joining a lab where the environment is "bring-the-best-and-let-them-learn" as PP mentions is a great opportunity to come in, hands up, saying I don't know but I really want to know so please teach me so I can. When I applied to my current (soon-to-be-former) lab, after my seminar someone asked, so how would you apply that technique to what we work on? My answer was, I wouldn't, I just want to apply the same thinking because I am so jazzed by what you guys do. Some places that might have been a negative but it was sincere and enthusiastic and people responded to it.
Posted by: MBench | January 8, 2009 9:31 AM
Professor in Training (#24) raises another good point. I'll follow up with some of my personal experiences.
I'm wrapping up my first postdoc with a junior faculty member on the tenure track (the final decision to be made later this month... fingers crossed!). Prior to my coming on board, he had exactly one senior author paper out, but he had a highly interesting postdoc career himself, and everyone I talked to in this department (including Bad-Ass Department Head, a NAS member and someone who seems to know everything about everygoddamned thing) was impressed with his intellect and skills. One track of the research he was doing was right up my alley, it was interesting, it was productive... but it was controversial.
Now, as Professor In Training said, it's a learning process, and the PI was much more accessible and open to suggestions than the other lab I got an offer from (Big Intimidating Intellectual Ninja With Huge Well-Funded Lab and Major Name Recognition). He was learning how to establish a lab, and, should I choose to establish my own lab, I learned from his mistakes.
But the other aspect of being in a junior PI's lab is that it can be a gamble in terms of the science being produced. Junior/tenure-seeking faculty tend to be lean, hungry and ambitions: they're out there to carve an intellectual niche, make their mark. This can be great, but it can be bad. The PI's research may be too out-there or overreaching. His/her interpretations and personal models could be violently rejected in the field. He/she may make too many errors in the administration of a lab (assigning of go-nowhere projects, etc.) to be productive. But on the other hand, it could pay off in a big bonanza of important work that makes his/her mark in the field, and elevates your name as well.
I lucked out -- or maybe not 'luck', since I did enough digging to be confident in my PI -- in that the work I'm currently doing, following up on the PI's previous work that itself attracted lots of attention, introduces a ton of significant and novel implications into a variety of research topics in cell biology. It attracts lots of attention at meetings, and my PI has been overwhelmed with offers to speak and write review articles. He's had to largely give up his bench space to make room for new postdocs, and to make time for his administrative, speaking and writing engagements. It's a great situation to be in.
I can't advise to always go with a young PI, because I don't want any postdoc's blood on my hands if the PI's lab ultimately crashes and burns. But I think as long as you're careful in your investigations, you will at least be party to solid research and privy to the nuts-and-bolts administration of a lab. And if you're really lucky, you'll be at the ground floor of something genuinely new and exciting -- most groundbreaking work comes out of 'young' labs; it's how the greybeards built their reputation, after all.
Posted by: minimalist | January 8, 2009 9:36 AM
Excellent post, PP. I honestly have little to add, other than that, when in doubt, I think it is best to err on the side of getting into the very best lab that you can (provided the PI isn't an ass). If you have a choice, and if you don't care about new vs established profs, forget about the assistant profs and go for the big guns. The name of your school and the name of your PI can take you halfway to almost anywhere you want to go. Of course, you will have to do the rest.
Posted by: Candid Engineer | January 8, 2009 9:47 AM
If you've read multiple posts in the DrugMonkey archives, then you're likely to have read CPP's original comment exactly this way.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | January 8, 2009 10:31 AM
make do with applicants who earned their PhDs from foreign institutions.
Hey!
Great post otherwise.
Posted by: Cath@VWXYNot? | January 8, 2009 11:01 AM
when in doubt, I think it is best to err on the side of getting into the very best lab that you can (provided the PI isn't an ass). If you have a choice, and if you don't care about new vs established profs, forget about the assistant profs and go for the big guns. The name of your school and the name of your PI can take you halfway to almost anywhere you want to go. Of course, you will have to do the rest.
@ Candid #40: Yes and no. As I mentioned at #24, it depends on what sort of mentor you are looking for. Sure, school and PI reputations can open doors and get TT interviews, but if you are unable to demonstrate that you are capable of functioning independently that's as far as you're going to get (which I know is the point you were trying to make). The point that PP raised in his post about working as a colleague rather than a postdoc in a junior PI's lab is a good one as this can be a very powerful learning experience that shouldn't be underestimated. Potential postdocs should be looking for the environment that will best prepare them for the next step in their career, not just the one that will get them to the stairs.
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 8, 2009 11:15 AM
One thing about established labs (>5 years): check out the past postdocs. What are they doing now? If few or none moved on to tenure track positions, STAY AWAY. It means the PI may be a good scientist, even a good manager, but they suck at mentoring and they have little or no interest in promoting their alumni.
Posted by: Andrew | January 8, 2009 12:32 PM
"This is because brand-new PIs are competing for post-docs with huge-ass famous motherfuckers, and mostly have to make do with applicants who earned their PhDs from foreign institutions".
Yup... sucks getting someone who earned their PhD from Oxford, Cambridge, EMBL, Max Planck, Karolinska, Tokyo or the Weizmann. The only good thing about a PI having a negative mind-set about "furriners" is that it leaves the rest of us with some excellent choices.
Posted by: Andrew | January 8, 2009 12:46 PM
"Now all I need is something on "how to network without making yourself look like a tool".
Here is the only secret you need: (1) People like other people who make them feel smart and admired. (2) Inviting people to tell you about what they give a shit about and listening actively makes them feel smart and admired."
(3) Apply liberally... to people who actually are smart and who you actually do admire. Or just cultivate an interest in humanity generally and assume everyone is interesting (evidence to the contrary being a sign you haven't asked them about the right topic yet). Otherwise... there's an element of toolishness
Posted by: becca | January 8, 2009 1:17 PM
You must have missed this comment I posted earler:
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 8, 2009 1:20 PM
@PiT #43: A key part of my original comment was 'when in doubt'. If you are not sure what you want, which is sometimes the case for the indecisive, as it was for me, it is best to go with the best (as long as you are willing to take full advantage of the opportunity).
working as a colleague rather than a postdoc in a junior PI's lab is a good one as this can be a very powerful learning experience that shouldn't be underestimated.
Despite working in a bigwig's lab, I am very much a 'colleague', not a 'postdoc'. I am rarely told what to do, and my experience and my opinions are valued, as are those of the postdocs around me. Junior PI labs are not the only places where one can manage to be treated as an equal. But you really have to know the lab environment that you are getting into.
Potential postdocs should be looking for the environment that will best prepare them for the next step in their career, not just the one that will get them to the stairs.
Absolutely, but the stairs are an awful good place to start. Going to the best lab that you can increases your probability of success. I would also say that potential postdocs often don't know what the heck they should do to prepare for the next stage of their career. They don't know what kind of lab would be best for them. And so why not go to the best that you can? (Again, providing that the PI isn't a douche.)
Posted by: Candid Engineer | January 8, 2009 2:43 PM
Where the fuck do you get the ridiculous idea that a senior PI is per se "best" compared to a junior PI? Many senior PI labs are known as black holes that don't even get you "to the stairs", as you put it.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 8, 2009 2:54 PM
What PP said.
I guess it depends on your definition of "best". Do you mean biggest number of trainees, most funded, most famous PI, most famous school, most amount of equipment?
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 8, 2009 3:02 PM
For more on this pernicious "senior labs are better than junior" bullshit, see this:
http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2008/04/physioprof_is_seriously_pissed.php
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | January 8, 2009 3:09 PM
I think that the very first statement made by PP is extremely important. If you are a scrappy young postdoc willing to work her ass off, are tenacious as all get-out, and will thrive on the challenge of building a lab from scratch, the lab of a young investigator can really be a place to thrive and to truly show your ability to establish research.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 8, 2009 3:54 PM
If you are a scrappy young postdoc willing to work her ass off, are tenacious as all get-out, and will thrive on the challenge of building a lab from scratch, the lab of a young investigator can really be a place to thrive and to truly show your ability to establish research.
Totally agree and this is also what PP covered in his post at DM. It's important to emphasize that this attitude/ability is exactly what's needed to succeed as an independent investigator so if you can get this type of experience during the postdoc training you'll have a definite advantage over your competition. This environment won't work for everyone but for those that thrive, success will prove to selection committees that you are more than capable of handling the TT.
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 8, 2009 4:11 PM
Another thing I thought about was the age of my PI in terms of years to retirement.
It might not be a good idea to end up working for someone with one foot out the door already.
****Rest of the World PhD/DPhil***
Apparently CPP won't mind if you got a PhD from Karolinska. Presumably because even though you might have a funny accent discrimination in that case would fuck up any chance of a Nobel speech by CPP anytime in the future.
So if your from Oxbridge you're OK. CPP just won't respect your PhD if it's from China or India. Because the clear implication from your post and your later clarifications is that if you do your science somewhere there it must be shit and your CV is in the trash already. Presumably this also means that my PhD from a small country American PhDs can't locate with a fucking atlas is also far too shit to be considered.
In addition the fact that Prof in Training is still getting stared at like a fish with three eyes because of her accent makes me wonder whether some discussion of the massive bias against non-american science and scientists might be worthy of as much discussion as the ongoing gender and race discussion.
Posted by: anon | January 8, 2009 4:49 PM
To anon:
To cite (anonymously) a chair of "molecular biology department" of a major (top 10) US research university:"I will never hire a non-US, even a top UK one, post-doc" as they don't know sh**, to keep it polite.
I'm not saying she/he is right, even though I believe you cannot compare ~6years at the bench for a US post-doc to 2.5-3.5 in Europe... That being said, some US PhDs are terrible, some non-US are outstanding. It is all a matter of population biology and, in general...[fill in the blank]
Posted by: snowy | January 8, 2009 4:49 PM
Anon, I think there are issues beyond whether someone from a foreign institution is "smart" or whether they are a potentially technically capable scientist. PP offers advice to individuals who are seeking postdocs that will train someone for academuc (ie, faculty/TT) independence. Presumably, that is what he is looking for in a postdoc. This requires more than technical prowess. Being an effective academic scientist also requires being a good communicator/grant writer and training someone who does not have a command of the language can be a huge time investment for a PI.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 8, 2009 5:10 PM
Where the fuck do you get the ridiculous idea that a senior PI is per se "best" compared to a junior PI?
Whoa, people, I never said that the 'best' is a senior PI (although I suppose I implied it). Seems as if this is a sore spot. What I meant my point to be is that the 'best' can be a senior PI. And also, it is very rare for an assistant prof to have already gained the reputation for being the best.
As I have learned in my short time in academics, sometimes perceptions and reputations are more important than actuality, sad but true. And even though I have not gotten smarter or more dedicated as I have moved from grad school to postdoc, the perception of the quality of my work has changed now that I work in the a lab that has a firmly established reputation for excellence.
So what does the 'best' mean, anyway? The best places are those that enable quality research while fostering the learning process for the trainees in the lab. Reputation is only a part of this, although an important part. Funding is another serious issue, and big famous profs are often very substantially funded (rightly or wrongly, I'm not getting into that here). Colleagues and other people that you are going to learn from are important. Resources and equipment are important. All of these things come into play, and only you can really assess the overall package.
At the end of the day, you want to go to a place that gives you the freedom to develop and test your own ideas while learning new techniques and making important personal connections. You want to go to a place that shows you the way to independence. You can get that experience with professors at any stage of their career. *But I really think your chances are better with labs that have already established a reputation for excellence*.
Posted by: Candid Engineer | January 8, 2009 5:23 PM
Isis-I quite agree. A high standard of written and spoken English at a scientific standard is a must-have.
But that's not what he said.
Snowy. In the European/British system the training starts before you get into the PhD programs. Undergraduate degrees are much more focussed and therefore the classes one takes in a US-style PhD are absent in a British PhD. US PhDs do not necessarily have a great deal more relevant experience than European/British style degrees.
Otherwise, thank you for your example. You illustrate my point exactly.
Posted by: anon | January 8, 2009 5:26 PM
@Snowy:
"I believe you cannot compare ~6years at the bench for a US post-doc to 2.5-3.5 in Europe..."
That's up to 3.5 years FULL TIME at the bench, spending all your time in the lab from day one. North American PhDs seem to spend much of the first 2 years in classes.
As a British PhD who did a (very successful) postdoc in Canada, I came up against this shit all the time. It counted against me when going for fellowships, and I heard mumblings about me (with varying degrees of openness) from grad students up to PIs.
Not to brag or anything, but I published more first author papers in higher-impact journals than any other postdoc in my lab's history (my PI was ~50 at the time if that gives you an indication of length of said history). I was the first British postdoc in my lab, but my boss went out of her way to find more Brits after me to go with the Canadians, Asians and assorted other Europeans, and is now happily mentoring her 3rd or 4th UK-trained postdoc.
Posted by: Cath@VWXYNot? | January 8, 2009 5:30 PM
What anon #58 said, too (comments crossed). I studied nothing but biology, chemistry and maths from the age of 16-18, and my undergrad degree (genetics) contained zero non-immediately relevant content, and covered stuff in the first and second year that Canadian grad students who I have supervised don't cover until the 2nd year of their PhD.
Posted by: Cath@VWXYNot? | January 8, 2009 5:32 PM
In addition the fact that Prof in Training is still getting stared at like a fish with three eyes because of her accent makes me wonder whether some discussion of the massive bias against non-american science and scientists might be worthy of as much discussion as the ongoing gender and race discussion.
While this made me laugh, I should emphasize that my non-American status hasn't hindered me AT ALL during my postdoc, job search or so far as a faculty member. Yes, I get treated like a freakshow sometimes, but my reputation, publications, love for hot science, communication skills (accent issues aside) and personality all work in my favor. My nationality and supercool accent are so incredibly exotic that I'm actually looked upon as being a very desirable addition to a research group or whatthefuckever.
It's off-topic but for what it's worth, Cath's comments in #59 & 60 apply to me too (just a different nationality).
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 8, 2009 6:35 PM
"Anon, I think there are issues beyond whether someone from a foreign institution is "smart" or whether they are a potentially technically capable scientist. PP offers advice to individuals who are seeking postdocs that will train someone for academuc (ie, faculty/TT) independence. Presumably, that is what he is looking for in a postdoc. This requires more than technical prowess. Being an effective academic scientist also requires being a good communicator/grant writer and training someone who does not have a command of the language can be a huge time investment for a PI. "
See, it's very simple. It would be "bad" (semi-demi-quasi racist? chauvanistically nationalistic?) to discriminate against Chinese or Indians based on the idea they must be stupid or incompetent. But it's A-OK to assume they must be unqualified (CPPs term) or incapable of independent research and poor communicators (Dr. Isis's position).
"That's up to 3.5 years FULL TIME at the bench, spending all your time in the lab from day one. North American PhDs seem to spend much of the first 2 years in classes."
3.5 years full time != 6.6 years (average time to degree in life sciences) of which 4.6 are full time, one is 3/4 time, and one is half time.
Not that I'd ever argue UKians et al don't (by and large) come out extremely competent. Just that in measures of shear suckitude of graduate school, you don't have street cred.
Posted by: Becca | January 8, 2009 9:16 PM
Becca
How long do you have to spend in formal University study in your mind for you to have accumulated enough sucktitude to have street cred?
I did 9 years full-time.
I don't know what these 3/4 and 1/2 years are coming from but PhDs from non-American universities are not some sort of soft option.
Posted by: anon | January 8, 2009 9:32 PM
Oh, well now that I know my fellowship applications were evaluated on street cred, the rejections make so much more sense ;)
Posted by: Cath@VWXYNot? | January 8, 2009 10:27 PM
How long do you have to spend in formal University study in your mind for you to have accumulated enough sucktitude to have street cred?
Are we including undergrad? If so, put me down for 13yrs of full time university education.
...PhDs from non-American universities are not some sort of soft option.
Again, it's still way off topic, but this gets my vote too. I did 4yrs of full time bench work for my PhD in a highly regarded foreign institution (ie no coursework requirements), with a new PI, set up EVERYTHING from scratch with little/no help from anyone and walked away with a thesis that yielded 6 first author papers that were published in great journals before I started my postdoc. If that's not at least comparable to a US PhD then I don't know what is.
But then again, Cath and I are NOT the population of non-US PhDs that PP was referring to. There are many foreign postdocs with questionable skills/intelligence that seem to have obtained their PhDs from the back of cereal boxes and whose CVs are full of papers published in the Journal of Unknown University.
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 8, 2009 10:56 PM
"To cite (anonymously) a chair of "molecular biology department" of a major (top 10) US research university:"I will never hire a non-US, even a top UK one, post-doc" as they don't know sh**, to keep it polite.
I'm not saying she/he is right, even though I believe you cannot compare ~6years at the bench for a US post-doc to 2.5-3.5 in Europe... That being said, some US PhDs are terrible, some non-US are outstanding. It is all a matter of population biology and, in general...[fill in the blank]"
Well, to quote a chair at a Canadian University: "Bush is the best thing that happened to Canadian science. American xenophobia coupled with their ridiculous immigration laws and barriers provided me with a much larger postdoc and pool than ever before. Too bad he cannot be elected for a third term".
"I should emphasize that my non-American status hasn't hindered me AT ALL during my postdoc, job search or so far as a faculty member"
That's nice, PIT. Most foreign postdocs I know got stuck for 2-4 months outside the US during visa renewals. One got fired from her lab, another decided to miss his father's funeral for fear of not being able to get back to the US on time.
Posted by: Andrew | January 9, 2009 2:47 AM
Please read the comment thread and the linked articles carefully before you so rudely slam all Americans on an American scientist's blog. This country isn't perfect, but I am telling you that my black and Korean ass has more opportunities here than I would anywhere else in the world-- including Canada-- for all your high and mighty attitude.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | January 9, 2009 5:49 AM
That's nice, PIT. Most foreign postdocs I know got stuck for 2-4 months outside the US during visa renewals. One got fired from her lab, another decided to miss his father's funeral for fear of not being able to get back to the US on time.
@Andrew #66: I'll echo Juniper on this one. Also, you've taken my statement out of context. We were discussing the prejudices of hiring foreign PhDs and whether my non-US PhD or supercool accent had worked against me professionally. Visas etc are a whole different story and I have had to deal with my fair share of that crap - I've
rantedposted about this at length on my own blog.Posted by: Professor in Training | January 9, 2009 9:48 AM
(Trying to put this in neutral terms... and not saying anything about individual Americans other than politicians...)
There is absolutely no doubt that current American immigration policies have made it much more difficult for foreigners to get into and work in the US, and that this has increased the number of top candidates coming to / staying in Canada.
One of my primary motivations for getting Canadian citizenship is to no longer have to be fingerprinted, interrogated and searched at the border every time I want to visit a friend or go to a concert in Seattle. I want to visit the States, I love it there. But the whole thing leaves me feeling so icky that I have actively avoided it (including wriggling out of conferences and paying higher prices for flights that don't connect in the US) for the last two years.
Posted by: Cath@VWXYNot? | January 9, 2009 10:06 AM
I freakin' love when Juniper Shoemaker comes to the blog to play!!!
Posted by: Dr. Isis | January 9, 2009 10:07 AM
"Please read the comment thread and the linked articles carefully before you so rudely slam all Americans on an American scientist's blog. This country isn't perfect, but I am telling you that my black and Korean ass has more opportunities here than I would anywhere else in the world-- including Canada-- for all your high and mighty attitude"
Well, you seemed to have little problem with the "high and mighty attitude" expressed by some of the commentators and bloggers here. ("make do with applicants who earned their PhDs from foreign institution") ("I will never hire a non-US, even a top UK one, post-doc" as they don't know sh**" / #55) and the subsequent back-pedaling Jedi mind-trick ("those are not the postdocs I am talking about").
Had PP said something like: "make do with postdocs who earned their PhDs from lesser institutions" this whole discussion vein would never have taken place. But PP hasn't, and it did; and the comments that subsequently followed proved a certain mind-set, either of the commentators or of the people they cite.
Finally, the person I quoted, I quoted verbatim. Personally, I would have said: "American INSTITUTIONALIZED xenophobia". The kind that is manifested in laws and official conduct of immigration authorities. Saying that Americans are xenophobic is self-defeating tantamount to saying "I hate racists and blacks (or Koreans)" :)
Peace.
Posted by: Andrew | January 9, 2009 12:00 PM
And lets be real here, if you are a foreigner (eg from Australasia) if you apply for a position, and the mentor or search chair has barely heard of your PhD institution, never heard of your mentor and never seen your smiling face at a meeting, it takes a bit more effort for them to get interested. So, the lesson I take out of that, is you have to be better than good to succeed.
Posted by: kiwi | January 11, 2009 4:31 PM
Okay. Let me elaborate. I have followed the blogs of many of these commenters (FYI, it's "commenters", not "commentators", in blogspeak) closely enough to know that they aren't xenophobic. CPP, for example, wrote this response to a 2007 BikeMonkey post on faculty job searches:
Admittedly, I'm a total CPP groupie, and, whenever he pays the least bit of attention to me, I recall a wee, wee little of the feeling I had when I was seventeen and I successfully sneaked backstage of the Weenie Roast to meet Dave Grohl, my second favorite rock star in the whole world, who thought it was funny and who was unbelievably nice to me even though I interrupted a conversation he was having with his equally nice girlfriend and who gave me his autograph. So my assessment is not exactly unbiased. I can also see how a reader new to the blog madness here would construe some of the comments on this thread as xenophobic.
However, that's what lurking's for. You have overreacted to the statements of American scientists legitimately concerned by the prospect of hiring trainees and colleagues with whom they can't produce good science, due to expertise in different subfields and language barriers. That's hardly advocation of barring "furriners" from participation in American science. Which, to be clear, is obviously incredibly stupid.
Communication's a bigger issue than people would like to admit; to this day I have difficulty communicating very complex ideas to my own mom, not only because our interests and levels of education are different, but also because my first language is English while her first language is Korean. When it's your mom, whom you love, and family's more important than anything, who cares? But it's not a workplace situation I'd actively seek out. For that matter, neither would she. Neither would many Indian and Chinese scientists in India and China reviewing applications from primarily English-speaking candidates with mastery in subjects disparate to theirs, trained at universities administered by standards unfamiliar to them.
I will add, though it will get me in trouble, that many American scientists share a desire to train more US citizens in science. As you underscored with your insulting comment, scientists are vital to a nation's advancement. Those of us who did not vote for Bush (okay, maybe CPP did, but I didn't, and I doubt that Dr. Isis did) and who spent a fair amount of our time actively opposing the ideology his ghastly administration represents even though we hate politics do not want to see our country go the way of, say, Spain leading up to the Inquisition, losing intellectuals right and left and dwindling from Empire to State. We would like to stop expelling brilliant people from our shores because fuckwitted far-right America thinks we should. In the same vein, we would like to train more scientists who are more likely to stay Stateside once they're ready to strike out on their own. (Or strike out independently, anyway.) If you want to call that xenophobia, fine.
What's a "lesser institution", anyway? Anything that isn't an Ivy League of its nation? Anything that isn't the equivalent of UC campuses at Berkeley, LA and Irvine? Because scientists from state universities would never have anything to offer? So, xenophobia's deplorable, but unilateral snobbery isn't?
Finally, it doesn't fucking matter that you quoted the Canadian professor verbatim. Your bald inclusion of the quote unequivocally implies that every American reading this thread deserves that slap across the face. That's rude. Yelling "INSTITUTIONALIZED" at me ameliorates neither the implication nor your lack of courtesy. Especially on an American scientist's blog. It would be just as rude if I trundled on over to this Canadian professor's blog and told him in no uncertain terms that I love being an American, and anyone who thinks that every other citizen of the world has the right to love their country while every American is obligated to condemn hers wholesale can shove it.
Peace, yourself. At this point, I've been locked out of SciBlogs for too long to say anything meaner than "I like condescension as much as the next person," but there it is.
P.S. I'm black AND Korean. There's no "either/or" about it, regardless of what people who fancy they're qualified to decide for me think. If the commenters here have "proven" the "certain mind set" you deplore, then by your own measure you've just "proven" yourself a racist and, if I add points for your pat-on-the-head condescension to me, a misogynist as well.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | January 11, 2009 10:22 PM
"scientists legitimately concerned by the prospect of hiring trainees and colleagues with whom they can't produce good science, due to expertise in different subfields and language barriers."
Legitimately acording to who?
As someone who believes landgrant universities are the engine behind successful higher education in the US, who spent her undergrad doing research on soybean diseases (and who knows a great many excellent medical school faculty who did plant research at one time or another), and who (most importantly) took at least a couple of years of formal education to attempt to learn the language which has evolved over centuries to be a common tounge for a diverse people (which, after all, is spoken by approximately 2-3 fold the number of people who speak in this silly English), I'm offended by CPP.
Not because he's a Big Bad Xenophobe... but because he thinks his objections are rational.
If you operate from the assumptions that 1) plant biology research can be excellent training and 2) the Chinese-English lanugage barrier can only be properly be overcome if both sides work at it, then it follows... maybe CPP is making excuses to justify his position to not work with 'certain kinds of people'.
One of the most important lessons of the psychological studies in things like association tests is that very few of us are without bias. CPP is not an overt Big Bad Xenophobe... but how he views the world is definitely shaped by his position (of priviledge).
CPP has a very... distinctive style of communicating. It's facinating to observe. But he does tend to assume that all other styles are inferior. Sometimes that makes him a male chauvanist (when he insists other people will fare better if they just act as brash/aggressive as he does). Sometimes that makes him a USian chauvanist (when he insists that *directness* is an intrinsic virtue). Sometimes that just makes him an arrogant prick (a CPP-chauvanist)
I think that viewing some people as "beyond" xenophobia is very dangerous... although I will happily grant that, given what I know about him, any malicious intent is exceptionally unlikely. But his way of expressing stuff was still rather offensive, this go-around.
Posted by: Becca | January 13, 2009 11:30 AM
Becca: with respect, you're missing PP's original point which was also nicely reiterated by Juniper. There is a subset of foreign PhDs who will see a job ad for an American university that has key words and phrases like "vacancy", "PhD required", "research" and "salary" and shoot off their CV on the off-chance someone will say yes. This happens regardless of what field the position is in and also regardless of the PhD's field. The point is that these people are typically NOT suited for the advertised position because their backgrounds, interests and experience just don't match what's required.
Language barriers are another issue entirely and I'm sure that most would agree that a rudimentary grasp of English is a basic requirement to postdoc in the US. One cannot communicate their science in this country without it. Period. You can argue until the cows come home, but that fact's not going to change. You cannot present a seminar at a major scientific meeting in the US in any language other than English. R01s cannot be submitted in any language other than English.
That being said though, if a grad student is keen to work with a PI, is enthusiastic, shows a real interest in the subject matter and has a background that suggests potential success as a postdoc (including good letters of recommendation), I'm sure a PI would overlook language deficiencies. But, for ultimate success as a postdoc and as a faculty member in the US, these candidates would have to learn to communicate effectively in English asap.
I can honestly say that, from my perspective as a foreign PhD, I saw nothing xenophobic in the statements made by either PP or Juniper.
Posted by: Professor in Training | January 14, 2009 12:50 AM
Professor in Training- when we do not explicitly reveal our impecable logic for considering an individual unqualified, but instead rely on a shorthand of connotation-rich-language to conjure up an image of "those people", we are not being as openmineded and logical as we might like to believe ourselves.
The way CPP originally phrased things in this discussion was incredibly sloppy, relying on xenophobic connotations of incompetent foreigners.
CPP's complaints that Juniper Shoemaker cited, concerning training in agriculture and language barriers (that he has never indicated he has put any effort into breaking down) sound only marginally less feeble, given that background.
Look. I'm sure there are unqualifed applicants. My question is, why describe them as "foreign"; why specify "from Indian and China"; why put forth handwaving over "language barriers"... instead of just saying "unqualified"?
Because all of those phrases are just substituting in for "unqualified" in the way CPP used them.
And that's intellectually sloppy. And certainly not conducive to a xenophobia-free world.
Personally, from what I've seen, it may be more important that CPP is offering misleading career advice. "I have a USian PhD, ergo I am god's gift to JuniorFacultyMentor" is a very bad attitude to cop. Particularly when JuniorFacultyMentor is needing to earn tenure based largely on the benchside efforts of a single postdoc and expects that postdoc to work 100hours/week.
The sad truth of the matter is that junior faculty don't "make do" with "inferior" Chinese/Indian postdocs. Academic science, by and large, couldn't get by without Chinese and Indian postdocs working so many hours they don't have time to learn better English (not that all of them want to; but I have known some that did and it was not encouraged). It's a screwed up system.
Posted by: Becca | January 14, 2009 10:31 AM
Thanks for this post! I am starting post-doc hunting and this is exactly the type of advice I need and am looking for. The comments section is a gold-mine as well.
Dr. Isis is quickly becoming my lab-goddess goto.
Posted by: Balancing Act | August 2, 2009 10:03 PM