I thought this analogy between grad school and Lord of the Rings was pretty funny, but what about Monty Python and the Holy Grail? I'm really tempted to start my next oral exam with:
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What is the long-range dispersal mechanism of Cocos nucifera?
I have linked to Terence Tao's blog for some time, because a surprising number of people come here from there. But, although I am more comfortable with math than some biologists, I don't have any idea what most of his posts are about. On the other hand, his career advice seems good and widely applicable. A recent post on gifted education seems like good advice both for parents and for any gifted students who might be reading this.
I've always been annoyed by the competitive aspect of science fairs. I worry that students who do a really good project are going to feel like they wasted their time if they don't win a particular prize. In Oregon, where I went to high school, there was an annual scientific meeting for high school students. It was considered an honor to have your talk or poster accepted for presentation, but it was an honor within the reach of any reasonably smart student who worked for it. It was great talking to other students about their projects, without worrying about winning or losing. Sure, a student thinking about grad school needs to know that competition for research faculty positions and grants is intense, but why kill the joy of science at an early age?
Rob Knop liked my previous post. The comments on his post are well worth reading. For example, someone pointed out that, even if you don't go into debt to finance grad school, there's still usually an economic opportunity cost. During the years you spent in grad school and as a postdoc, you might otherwise be paying down a home mortgage, saving for retirement, etc., not to mention nonfinancial opportunities, like starting a family.
Terence Tao also has some good career advice,. It's aimed mainly at mathematicians, but much of it is relevant to science in general.
Advice sent to an aspiring grad student, without identifying particulars.
1) Don't use a generic subject line when contacting a prospective major professor. I almost didn't open your email, thinking it was probably spam. Snail mail with a stamp and handwritten address really stands out, but email with "reprint request" will probably be opened. Ask for a PDF of a paper or two whose abstract looks interesting, but you don't have full-text access.
2) Read the papers, plus others you can find on-line or in your nearest university library. You might also consider going to a relevant scientific meeting in addition to, but not instead of, reading scientific papers. The nice thing about a meeting is that you can ask questions and talk to people from lots of different labs all in one place. The problem with talks is that if something isn't clear, it's gone, whereas with a paper you can read it twice, think about it, look up relevant definitions, etc.
3) Do the papers (including the part about weighing 5000 seeds or chasing lizards in the rain) make you think "I wish I'd done that?" If not, look for another lab, that does make you react that way.
This entry is inspired by "Why I got out of research" at http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/ and Rob Knop's blog entry Get out; you're not good enough , and is addressed to readers considering grad school in science.
There are more people qualified for faculty positions at research universities than there are openings. By "qualified" I mean having earned a PhD, done a postdoc, and published at least one senior-authored peer-reviewed journal article from each. By this definition, one can be qualified without necessarily being competitive in today's academic job market.
Those of us lucky enough to get such a research university position find that (as vwxynot put it):
"Even if you do make it big and get your own lab, you’re suddenly responsible for your whole team’s job security as well as your own. Grants depend on the quality of the researcher and their work, yes, but also on trends, fads, luck, nepotism, reputation, political interference and geography."
The importance of nepotism, politics, and geography probably varies among countries, but there's no doubt that only a fraction of good proposals get funded. And yet, getting grants is often an expectation for tenure.
So, if most PhD's won't get a research university faculty position (RUFP), then who should consider going to grad school in science?
Continue reading "Who should consider grad school in science?" »
There's an interesting discussion at Pharyngula and The Loom about the challenges of communicating science to nonscientists.
When I suspect an interviewer's only going to use a sound-bite, I decide in advance on a few I wouldn't mind them using. This doesn't always work, though. NBC interviewed me about transgenic crops a few years ago. They kept asking "can consumers tell if food is transgenic?" They already knew the answer and apparently had a script calling for a scientist to say "no" on camera. You might think they would want to talk to experts before deciding what the important questions are, but apparently not. So I kept saying, "that's not the issue; the question is how growing these crops will affect the evolution of weeds and insect pests." Not a bad sound bite, in my opinion, but it wasn't in their script. So they ended up just using visuals from my research fields, and adding their own stupid narration. Maybe if I'd said, "no, and labeling won't help" I would have had a chance to explain about gene flow, but I doubt it.
In contrast to my NBC experience, here's a nice example of telling a complex science story in 90 seconds. It's about our research on the evolution of cooperation between rhizobium bacteria and plants.
Download MP3 file