Getting an academic job, the view from the Search Committee - Chris Wylie

1. Career Guidance Session: Getting and keeping an academic position: Saturday, 2pm Getting an academic job, the view from the Search Committee - Chris Wylie Getting an academic job, the view from the postdoc - Bilge Birsoy (UC Santa Barbara) Keeping an academic job, the view from the Tenure Committee - Chris Wylie Keeping an academic job, the view from the Assistant Professor - Doug Houston (U. Iowa)

2. Molecular and Developmental Biology Graduate Program Getting a job: the view from the search committee Chris Wylie Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical center

3. Scrutiny of cv The conventional timescale of a job search: 6 months invitation to interview Consultation with referees Second visit Fall - Spring negotiation

4. But, maximizing your position in the job market starts much earlier (which is why you're here) • Choice of mentors • Planning what would be the best type of job for you • Being in the right training environment • Publications • Gaining independent funding for graduate/postdoc   research • Practice interviews/research presentations • Generating a fundable research proposal

5. Your primary objective is to convince a search committee to hire you "The Search Committee" So, you need to know as much as possible about them

6. The Search Committee: • Does not necessarily contain the person(s) who will offer   you a job! • Is usually selected by the Dept. Chair(s) concerned, or   Head(s) of Center(s) = "Hiring Authority". • Will contain a cross-sectional representation of the   departments' personnel and activities. • Can be complex. This is particularly true of Dev Biol,   which is a naturally interdepartmental discipline. • Don't be put off by complex-looking ads. Call the   contact person and ask about the position

7. Reasons given by search committees for inviting candidates for interview: • academic track record (clear, concise cv) • publication record (publish!!) • independent financial support (always apply for grants) • well-written research statement (get help) • fundable research plan (must be “yours”, opinions vary) • outstanding letters (people you know well) • "fit" with the original plan (point out how well you fit) • or, "so good that we should take a look anyway"

8. Reasons given by search committees for not inviting candidates for interview: • outside the area we want to recruit into • poorly presented cv • poorly written research proposal • not sufficient quality/quantity of    publications • not stellar letters of recommendation

9. Reasons, given by search committee members, for not short-listing candidates after interview. • “He/she didn’t give a great talk, interesting subject though, and well-  respected mentor” • “He/She didn't indicate what they are going to do next” (There are many   variations on this comment: “not clear enough future plan”, “couldn’t see a   grant application in this work”, etc etc) • “I wasn’t clear how independent this person was. Were they his/her own ideas,   or those of the mentor” • "It's obvious that he/she can't bring this project with them" • “I couldn’t get a word out of this candidate in our one-on-one meeting. She/He   seemed bored by my research” absolutely fatal this one • “He wore jeans to the interview!!” • “His/her research looked good on paper, but when he/she described it, I   couldn’t get very excited about it” • “There were flaws in his/her research, which I hadn’t spotted when I read the   cv” • “Didn’t think much of his/her performance at the lunch meeting” • “Not sure he/she would come, even is we offered the job”

10. The second visit: • Is hosted by the hiring authority (e.g. Dept Chair) • You will be dealing with different people • Is very different. In the first visit, they were looking   at you, in the second visit, you are definitely looking at   them. • but don't let your guard down, they still haven't made a   final decision about you. • make sure you see housing, lifestyle, other potential   colleagues, postdocs and students, core facilities you   will need, schools, and anything else that will help you   make a decision if and when a final offer arrives.

11. The offer • Is usually negotiable • But there may be some items they can't change (space is an   example) • Will usually consist of a 3-year start up package, including   money to initiate staffing of your lab, consumables and   equipment • Salaries?? http://www.aaup.org = American   Union of   University Professors •   http://www.aamc.org = Association of American Medical   Colleges • How much do you trust the offer/institution? Get   everything you care about in the offer letter.

12. Where to get more help: • This book, and    references therein • Your mentor • Your colleagues • Us

13. Keeping a job -the view from the tenure committee Chris Wylie

14. TENURE

15. TENURE

16. The tenure process What you can do to maximize your chances

17. The tenure process: 1) A typical sequence of events (big Dept. with Divisions) Step 1. Division director's letter of recommendation. This is based on the applicant's tenure dossier, his/her opinions based on annual evaluations, and letters from external experts in the field of research. Step 2. Departmental Promotions and Tenure Committee discusses the tenure application, and writes a memo to the department chair. Step 3. Department Head writes a letter of recommendation, based on steps 1 and 2, and any other evidence he/she has concerning the application. Step 4. The College Tenure and Promotions Committee meets, and writes a letter of recommendation to the Dean. Step 5. The Dean makes a decision to support or not to support the application for tenure, writes a letter to the Provost. Step 6. The provost approves the application. Step 7. The president approves the application. Step 8. And finally it is approved by the Board of Trustees. NB. The process can be influenced at any step

18. What’s in your dossier? • - evidence of scholarly publication • - evidence of a national/international reputation • - evidence of funding for research • - evidence of teaching ability • - evidence of service to the institution • a self statement from you • NB. Criteria are different in different places

19. Things to think about: 1) The snowball effect 2) Perspectives differ. Think like the Dean! And do it before you take the job.

20. When you are thinking about your first job, think about two things: success history, and time. Success History - what percentage of people get tenure at places where I want to be? - would I be happy being somewhere else? Time - what do I need to do? - when do I need to do it?

21. Work out a timetable. 1) The first six months; - hire a technician - set up your lab - look for a postdoc - think carefully about a graduate student - draft out a grant proposal, and circulate it - identify an NIH Inst and grants administrator - preliminary experiments for grant - establish a mentorship committee - write up any outstanding work from your postdoc - give a departmental seminar, or at least reserve a slot

22. 2) The second six months: - hire a second technician. Set up pyramid structure - finish preliminary experiments - write them up as a paper and send off. - aim for one paper in a major journal each year - finish grant and send off - this is the end of your first year. Get a formal evaluation from your department chair

23. 3) The third six months: - enhance your grant before the study section meets - invite yourself to give seminars (in combination with the appearance of your first paper) - teaching commitments usually start - committee work usually starts - you will get your grant score - call grants administrator, talk to mentors

24. 4) The fourth six months: If you got your grant: - think about your lab personnel; graduate student? postdoc? If you didn’t: - talk to mentors, revise grant as per reviews, do any required experiments, resubmit. In any case: - write up another paper and send it off (NB one per year is the aim) - get another formal evaluation from your chair

25. 5) The third year: - try to get invited to a meeting - continue to give seminars - if you are now funded, think about a second grant - write a review article - write another paper - get another formal review - this is usually the time of formal renewal

26. Some general thoughts for the next few years: - perseverance is rewarded - keep working in the lab - don’t be adversarial - continue to network - don’t alienate anyone

27. Points for the academic clinician: 1) Protected time 2) Get clear goals from division director/department chair 3) Get mentorship, and if possible, research space, from basic science lab, if basic science is the goal 4) Patient oriented research requires a lot of formal training and approval of protocols 5) You do get longer, so apply for a KO8 first