Thursday, September 4, 2014

What to wear on an academic job interview if you are male

This is in response to what was written on a really great blog called The New PI Sets Up a Lab. She addresses the topic of what females should wear on a job interview and what to wear as a new PI.  

The New PI gives the advice that a woman might want to wear at least one item that expresses her personality, something that gives her some flair.  While this might work for women, and I’m not sure it does, this is terrible advice for men.  Anything strange or particularly memorable about your clothes is only going to hurt you. 

What qualifications do I have to say this?  I’ve worked in one very old-school department with lots of conservative old professors at a fancy medical school and I’ve worked at one of the world’s most prestigious institutions that was in the vicinity of four other universities.  I now work at a major university’s medical school.   The point of bringing all this up is that I’ve probably seen at least 100 job talks, particularly since I made it a priority to attend them during my postdoc, and actually paid attention to what the candidates wore.  I was also on two search committees this past year.  There are two outfits that will work regardless of what type of department it is.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

What it's like to submit a paper to PNAS when you are not famous

My lab studies a protein that has been intensely researched for many years.  So we were really excited when we discovered something totally new about this protein that regulates its localization in the cell.  This is an incredibly important protein for a variety of diseases, and so we thought our findings should go to a semi-high impact journal.  I say semi-high because we don't have in vivo data and the mechanistic data that we have so far probably isn't the entire story.  Nonetheless, we made this discovery using a fancy platform technology and have plenty of experiments confirming the finding and demonstrating that it is important.

After a lot of consideration, it seemed that PNAS was our best shot because our protein is of general interest and our work reaches across more than one discipline.  Papers like ours have appeared in PNAS in recent years on less important proteins and without validation of the importance or in vivo relevance of the data.  So this is where we submitted 38 days ago.    

The reason I decided to write this post is that the review process at PNAS is not like other journals and, based purely on anecdotal evidence (my own experience and that of two other junior PIs), my feeling is that a new PI should not even bother submitting to PNAS unless they have a strong network of NAS members interested in their work, a pre-arranged editor, or perhaps have a Nature-level paper that they want to get out fast.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

R01 update: the pain of a close score

I got my score for the R01 that I wrote on my lab's main project.  The scores were awesome.  They thought the grant was significant and innovative.  They thought my expertise was perfectly aligned with the proposed work.  The scientific environment got mostly perfect scores as well.  They thought the aims were great.  The reviewer concerns were minor at best.  On one hand this feels awesome, but on the other hand, it means nothing, because I still didn’t meet the payline, even with the ESI bonus.  This hurts even more knowing that my score is one of the best anyone in my department has received in the past three years.  This pretty much means that only close-to-perfect scores will be funded this round.  The situation just seems impossible.

My dept chair was quite a bit more upbeat about this than me.  She said there was very little chance that the study section was going to give me this grant on the first try anyway when I still have a few more months of funding left, but that I should get it on the next try.  I didn’t think study sections were supposed to consider current funding, but then again, in this funding climate, how could they not?  She also told me to look at this as an opportunity to stop and think a little deeper about my research, and really bring out the therapeutic future potential in the resubmission.  I guess that's good advice.    

My program officer said something similar about select pay.  She loved my grant and said I was a great candidate for select pay given my great score and that most of the critiques could be responded to simply by adding text.  However, with the remaining months on my R00 grant, she said I would likely not be competitive for select pay in the eyes of the council, because this usually goes to labs that are about to shut down due to lack of funding.  So obviously things could be worse, but it still stings.  

So I’m gearing up for a resubmission.  ESIs can resubmit past the standard deadline for review in the very next cycle.  Since my first submission, we’ve published a paper that addresses many of the questions in Aim 2, so I now have to write a new sub-aim or craft an entirely new aim.  I feel like I have to come up with something so practical and feasible that there can be no new critiques, but then this means that it will probably be boring.  Everything I want to write about has a catch.  In vivo experiments, using a new type of primary cell, or using a new technique would all open up a whole new world of possible concerns from the reviewers.

So this means my complete blog post on writing an R01 is still postponed until further notice.  If you need me, I’ll be brainstorming in my office all weekend. 

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Why I hate career panel discussions

I’m at a very large university and in the past year, I’ve been asked to be on three different career panels for three different student/postdoc groups.  I was recently on a committee for our departmental retreat and the committee chair proposed doing yet another one of these career workshops for the students.  I tried really hard to convince my colleagues that we could do something better, because I’ve really come to hate these types of career panels.  Here are some of the reasons.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

My R01 advice so far…

I’m not quite ready to write up an exhaustive guide for what I think should be included in each section of an R01 like I did for the K99/R00 application, because, well, honestly, I haven’t gotten an R01 funded yet.  I have now submitted two completely different applications.  One was scored, but not in a fundable range, and the second will be reviewed in June. 

So what did I learn from my first unfunded application? 

Well first of all, you really have to think about whether it's worth the time if it's not a clear super-slam-dunk. It really seems that every star has to align for you to get funded right now.  For me there were several problems with my grant that I did realize beforehand, but, because I was getting such great feedback locally, I suppressed my gut feeling about these things. 

1.  I proposed to use a mouse model that we are in the process of developing.  All three reviewers basically said that preliminary data with the mouse was absolutely necessary and one even said that the relevance of the entire grant was in question until this mouse and the preliminary data were in hand.  I actually think I would have been better off leaving that one small subaim out of the grant altogether.

2.  This was a new direction within my field that I have not published on specifically.  I actually got 1’s and 2’s for my score as an investigator, but then there were hints of skepticism in the critiques of the approach, which I think would have been eliminated had we had at least one publication on this exact topic.  I will not be resubmitting this grant for at least a year so that we have both the mouse and a published paper. 

3.  A clear focus on a specific disease seems to be absolutely essential.  I thought a strength of my grant was that what I am studying is an entirely new aspect of a protein/pathway that is so broadly important.  However, without a very specific disease model system, our work came off as generating knowledge for knowledge’s sake.  This is a little frustrating that they weren’t seeing the big picture, but on the other hand, I see how it’s easier to grasp, and easier to justify spending the money when there’s a specific disease being worked on.    

4.  Adding senior PIs onto your grant does not necessarily make you more credible. It just makes the reviewers angry. “Bloated” budget or some variety of that sentiment was used by all three reviewers.  This came out in the critiques of the approach.  Any salary support for people outside of your lab has to be absolutely 100% critical to you completing the research.  Mentorship or advice on certain techniques doesn’t cut it.  They need to actually be doing something substantial to get any salary support.  I was left with the feeling that a simple modular budget for me as a new ESI with no paid collaborators would have made them much happier. 

The last thing I’ll say is that while this grant was not funded, I learned A LOT that I applied to my second application.  This new application is on our bread-and-butter topic, the one for which my K99/R00 was funded.  This one was so much easier to write because we have publications, lots of preliminary data, and a very clear disease model.  The tricky part for me was making it completely different from my R00 aims.  I was hesitant to submit on this topic earlier because I assumed that whatever I proposed, the reviewers would say, “well shouldn’t you be doing this new and exciting stuff already with your R00 money?”   However, this view changed when I realized that one of my fellow K99 recipients had landed an (enormous non-modular) R01 on his first submission in the first months of his faculty position with the same overall goal as his K99.  Upon a very careful read of his grant summaries, I realized that the aims of his two grants were indeed distinct even though the goal was the same.  I decided to take the same approach.   Over the past two years in my own lab we’ve made a lot of progress and have developed some new directions, so I made absolutely sure that my aims were completely different in the two grants.   Stay tuned for the June reviews.  I’ll either be writing up my guide to writing R01s or frantically working on a resubmission. 

Monday, August 5, 2013

Update: I did get a faculty job!

Since I haven’t updated this blog in a while, I’ll start by saying that even with a K99, a good number of publications, and a pretty famous postdoctoral co-mentor, I only got two interviews from the roughly 100 applications I sent out. 

I wrote about my first interview in my last post, and even though I did like the school and the people there, it was in a city that is economically depressed and far away from family, and overall made me feel anxiety about potentially having to move there.  What was even worse is that I didn’t hear anything about their hiring process for months. 

I felt defeated and scared to death the day that I had to email the NIH and ask for an extension on my K99 because I hadn’t secured a faculty position. Luckily, the people at the NIH were totally responsive and reasonable and gave me up to a year extension for the due date of submitting my R00 application.  However, this did not come with any more money.  So my mentor had to start paying my salary again, which meant a major pay cut and a major blow to my self-esteem.  

I was still clinging to the notion that the perfect job in my dream east coast city was going to appear even though I knew the hiring season was basically over.  I was checking job postings multiple times per day and a very late job posting did appear at a major university in a Midwestern city that I had travelled to many times during my childhood.  Leaving the east coast was something I was desperately trying to avoid, but I felt like I at least had to apply since it was a really great school.  I sent out this one last application, six letters of recommendation (because they said “at least three”), and mentioned in my cover letter that I had visited many times and had family in the area. 

Monday, January 16, 2012

First Job Interview

The blogs were right when they said that an academic job interview is possibly the most exhausting experience of your life.  I had a full day of travel complete with a three hour time difference that then left me wide awake with adrenaline flowing at 4am both mornings. (I had been getting up at 7am everyday the week prior.)

As for the school, I had a great experience and was extremely impressed with everything about the institution.   The department chair was absolutely inspiring and I left feeling like I could totally be successful there.  More importantly, I left feeling like I was exactly what they were looking for and that I'd have a job offer in the mail the very next day.  However, I think their goal is probably to make everyone feel this excited... and I'm still waiting for that offer.

The interview days involved about a dozen meetings with deans, dept chairs, everyone on the search committee, and all the hot-shot faculty members plus two breakfast meetings at my hotel, a lunch meeting with students, and a big dinner with faculty at an Italian restaurant.  I was literally delirious during my research seminar because it was at the end of the first day and I somehow finished about 10 minutes faster than any of my practice runs.  But, I had a lot of questions so I think it was ok.  Luckily the chalk talk was early the second day so I was a little more composed for that.  It's really true that you can almost instantly tell who is on your side in the chalk talk and who is not-so-interested in hiring you.  They either asked questions that were genuinely to help them understand or suggested other approaches that might help to get the research funded, OR they asked irrelevant/tangential questions to try to confuse things or to get me to argue with them. 

Before the interview, I read a lot of the articles and tips on academic interviewing including all the of the blog entries aggregated here at bluelabcoats, but I thought I'd make a list of a few more things that I learned.