The Unknown Adversary

When you get that initial letter (or email in my case) that states you're getting a tenure track offer, it's essentially life-changing. As you can barely restrain yourself in your office chair (or in bed checking your iphone at 3 am...), you want to rejoice in pure happiness. There's fireworks going on in the background. You're having delusions of grandeur thinking you're going to hit 9 out of 10 proposals. You're going to be an awesome teacher with near perfect reviews. Blah blah blah.

Fast forward a few months. You're settling into your new position. Working on your first proposal. Finishing those last few papers that you need to do otherwise you'll never get them done. Oh, and then DrWife reminds you to finish submitting your relocation reimbursement. So, you collect your receipts and head to the department administrators who will undoubtedly help out the new guy. You're handed a folder with a bunch of papers from the interview and hiring process. You start browsing the paperwork as you're chatting with the secretary when you notice something very peculiar.

There's a misplaced piece of paper in your folder with the information of another interviewee of the university; someone they've passed over. You can help but look at the name, address, and current institution. And it turns out this is someone that you've met before and has a "name" in your field...

And then it dawns on you. There are a lot of people that submitted for this position and you're the one that got it. But it doesn't stop there. There are also people that you probably know and they were passed over for you. And eventually you'll want to make a splash in your field and undoubtedly some of the people that were passed over may resent you for it. Killing your proposals, negative comments in professional societies, etc etc.

So that begs a few questions. If you're in academia, do you eventually find out if other people applied for the position? And if those persons reveal themselves, have they been good sports about it? Or should I expect some backlash during some of my proposal reviews, paper reviews, etc etc? If you're out in industry, how does it work out there? I have no clue if things are as tight-knit as they can be in a specific academic field.

Negotiations

Lately, I've been getting settled at SnowU. I'm up on the faculty page in one department (and hopefully soon on the other). My permanent office was just vacated by its previous occupant. Now all they need is a new coat of paint and my furniture and I'm good to go on that front. The other stuff is going decently well too. There's a fellow new faculty member in one department and we're trying to work out logistics between the two labs, costs for remodeling, and establishing a 3-5 year plan for our spaces. I'm not too worried about that as I think it will get worked out shortly.

That does, however, lead to the main topic of this post: negotiations. When I originally discussed the App Package (part 1 & part 2) and the rest of the interview process, I realized I never mentioned much about the negotiations. From what I've heard and from my (limited) experience, everything is negotiable. If it's something that is a deal breaker for you, definitely bring it up now because you would be able to do it later. However, most negotiations break down along a few lines, namely: Startup, Students, Lab, Office, Salary, Extras. First, I'll start with some general thoughts though.

General Info

Have specific targets in mind for everything. I need "X" amount of lab space, roughly "Y" students salaries for at least two years, and I'm a rough startup pile'o'cash of "Z". If you're needing specific equipment, come prepared with a list during your interview. Also, look up student salaries and tuition expenses to get a rough idea of the cost per student. I didn't really have to show the specifics during my interview but they definitely glanced at my rough startup outline and were impressed that I had what appeared to be a detailed list. It shows you've thought about what you'd need, estimated costs, and are prepared for the job.

Startup

I know the whole thing is called your "Startup Package", but this is really the money part. How much do you need to get the ball rolling on your operations? What's the minimum amount you need to grease the wheels. If you throw out a huge number, be prepared to back it up with hard figures (even quotes if necessary). The university you're interviewing at will have some ideas about your research field and they'll know roughly what to expect from you. If you low-ball it, they'll probably not take you seriously. If you high-ball it, just justify it and negotiate from there. Remember, most (decidedly most, but not all) don't want you to fail in your tenure track period. They want you to succeed because you're expensive for the university. But if you don't ask for it now, it's not going to matter at tenure review when you say "well I didn't have enough to start the ball rolling." Have a rough number in mind and then round up by 30%. Hey, it's negotiations.

In my case, startup money, students, and summer salary got lumped into one total pot that I can draw from so I don't have to stick to 3 students and X in money. I can change it to 2 students and X+dX in money if I want. If you can negotiate that, do so because it will make things more flexible for you.

Students

I specifically separated students and startup money because tuition is expensive and 4 years X $$$$ tuition X some students = a lot of startup money. In practice, that will probably come in the form of tuition waivers and things like that. It doesn't matter how the university does it, just make sure you budget for students. Also find out the policy for tuition waivers (if any) or if you get TA support as per normal faculty.

Inquire about the average cost per student per year ( (tuition+salary+taxes)*overhead). This may be a key factor in deciding where to go if you've got multiple options. If you're planning on having a big group (say 10 people), the difference between $100k/student/year and $85k/student/year means $150k difference in your needed funding per year. If you're running a 10 student lab then you're in the $1M+ in research money turnover per year. To some profs, the difference between $850k and $1M in research money per year may not seem like much but as a new faculty member, that scares the shit out of me. That's a lot of money to have to bring in every year to keep things going.

Lab Space

Your lab space is directly coupled with the startup package and the size of your group. How many students are you planning on supporting right away? What equipment do you need and how much floor space does it take up? What are the requirements for your lab conditions (temp control, lighting, humidity, fume hoods, whatever)? Once again, a detailed list is better here. It shows you've thought about it and they you're not in over your head. I probably wasn't too specific on the size but I had very specific requirements on the lab conditions.

Salary

I've heard two different schools of thought when it comes to salary. One is: don't negotiate on it and save all your chips for more space/bigger startup/more students. Two is: only mainly negotiate on salary because the rest won't matter too much in the end.

I can definitely see the logic in (1). You're probably going to make decent money anyway and you'll probably do some consulting on the side. So your academic salary + summer salary + consulting should be enough to live on. Plus, instead of taking some extra money, you can get possibly an extra student or more equipment or whatever. That will help you get tenure (and more output, recognition, etc) and a higher earning potential.

However, (2) also makes sense. Here's the point reason. They're going to give a startup package so you will get some stuff. If you've asked appropriately in the beginning, even if they low-ball you, you're going to still get a nice package. So, this will be your only time to really ask for more money. And, to tell you the truth, I'm not so sure an extra "X" amount in startup or 1 extra year of a student salary is going to make or break tenure. If you're that close to the "go/no go line", then a lot more has gone off track than your initial negotiations.

In the end, make sure to ask for summer salary for at least your first two years. You're not going to have much research money coming in before then. After that, it's up to you.

Office

I'm not sure how much it matters (although I'm not in FSP's office) so I just asked for the same sort of office space that all the other tenured/tenure tracks have. I did ask for a nice coat of paint and a carpet though. Basically, I would try to make sure you're on professor row where you are visible like the other profs. Young students don't want to forage around in the dank basement for your office. That's going to make it harder to attract good students.

Extras

I wasn't sure what extras you might negotiate on until this past week, which is ultimately what spurred this post. PARKING!!! Maybe this is just me but I don't think you should have to pay for parking where you work. And I don't think you should have to deal with BS about which car you take on a given day. This is the one thing I did wish I negotiate for and forgot to do so. I think all faculty (and probably all employees) at a university should get a hang tag free'o'charge from the university when they start. No fuss, no bullshit, and no dealing with parking which seems like an entity unto themselves with universities. And, if all the new faculty start asking for it and get it, they might change the policy at the university.

So that's all I have on the subject for now. Anything else I missed, please comment below. Feel free to add other tips and thoughts as well.

It's Ok to say I don't know

For engineers, it is sometimes difficult to say that you don’t know, especially in academia. An engineer at a basic level is supposed to solve problems and come up with ideas. Academia can be pretty cutthroat with funding drying up and the pressure to patent, publish, and build a research group. Saying you don’t know goes counter to being a solutions-oriented person.

In an interview, and particularly in a difficult interview, the most effective way to not get backed into a corner is to say you don’t know. During my interviews, I have one clear instance where there was no way I was going to impress this faculty member and had no choice but to switch from promoting my abilities to trying to limit my losses. I’ll try to remain as generic as possible but the rough scenario was the following.

Day 1, I met HardProf with the other Profs in a quasi-informal setting (although you, as the interviewee, treat everything like an interview). Most of the other Profs were bantering with me about side topics; sports, experience abroad, traveling, lifestyle, family, etc etc. Sure, some of these things aren’t officially allowed to be interview questions but they’re going to come up so you might as well answer them. Anyway, HardProf did not seem to join the banter but would continuously switch topics to research/teaching/group setup/experience. I found this odd, but went with it. I was a little uncomfortable with rapidly adapting to new topics while focusing to keep as socially and politically neutral as possible.

Overall, Day 1 interviews went very well so I ended the day feeling very positive. I had one awkward interview but that is easily classified as neutral compared to this. Day 2 rolls around where I meet with HardProf early in the day. Usually, the interview starts with a few minutes of banter just to get the flow going. This was not the case with HardProf. From minute one, HardProf starts firing broadsides and I had no choice but to duck and cover. From my talk the previous day and from discussions with other Profs, HardProf knew I did not have experience in this one field. However, one of the classes I suggested I wanted to teach contained a lot of that field. Previously, I answered that question stating something like “Currently, I am not fully up to speed on that particular topic. However, it is an area that I know I need to brush up on. Thus, why not put myself forward for teaching a class that has it to make sure I really learn it.” Most Profs usually respected that I admitted I did not know and that I was willing to learn. However, HardProf decided to go line by line through the course syllabus over 30 minutes, fully knowing I had experience with only a few topics.

Now, I tend to think I’m fairly good at coming up with BS on the spot when needed. But in an interview, BS is definitely an area you want to stay away from. So when HardProf asked, I shrugged and said my usual line about willing to learn. And with the next question, I shortened it to “I don’t have experience with that topic”. And a few questions later, “I don’t know”. And because I didn’t fumble around for a reason and stall for 10 minutes, I came out of the interview knowing there was no way I impressed HardProf but I don’t feel like it was my fault HardProf’s time was wasted. After 10 minutes of questioning, you’d figure the interviewee would get the point you’re trying to make and move on to something that was more useful. In the end, HardProf told me to enjoy my stay and good luck in the future, which is a nice political way of saying “get lost”.

So what were your hardest interviews/questions? How did you respond and did you think it ended up helping or hurting your overall performance?

Finding Your Champion

When preparing for the interview, it is standard practice to read the website bios for each faculty member and to see their research interests. When doing so, make sure to ask for an interview schedule and specifically prepare for those people with whom you are meeting. If necessary, read their last few papers to see what they published recently.

Aside from looking for things to jog your memory while you’re meeting with them, you’re also looking for who is going to be your best champion when the committee makes their decision. Usually, there is a senior faculty member who has research interests that align somewhat with yours and they will likely be more enthusiastic about bringing you on over someone that comes from way out in left field. Some might see this as a little internal competition but that’s why you work on explaining how you two can work together. Let’s face it, even when you’re good enough to land a tenure track position, you’ll still need mentoring and support along the way. Someone who has similar research interests will definitely make a better mentor than someone who has no idea what or why you are working on your specific research.

During my prep, I found this to be rather easy and indeed when meeting people who I targeted to be my champion(s), I definitely found it easier to talk with them because we did have more research aspects in common.

The other thing to do in this stage is figure out who you can impress the most and who is going to be the hardest to win over. For instance, if there are 10 faculty member interviews you probably want at least 2 people to be really excited to land you. For the other members, you probably need 6 to say that you have what it takes, they could certainly work with you, and that you’re willing to contribute to the faculty for teaching and academic service. There’s probably going to be 2 people that you’re not going to win over. However, the closer you can get them to feeling at least neutral about you, the better.

Usually, the faculty members that are going to be the most difficult interviews either have a candidate they’d rather see or they have a philosophical difference with your research/teaching style. In those interviews, you can usually tell that finding common ground is difficult, which immediately puts you on the defensive. For instance, when I came across that, I focused on not getting upset or defensive but rather explaining my position on why [a chalkboard lecture was better than powerpoint] and why I thought it could reach students, but that I was willing to adapt as I got more experience with [teaching]. It shows that you’re not an idealistic prick who wants everyone to learn like you learned. Aside from philosophical differences, if you get backed or back yourself into a corner on something that’s out of your area, just be honest and say you don’t know.

Interview Essentials

So you’ve worked very hard on your app package. You’ve applied to every university that has an opening and you’ve been waiting for weeks [months], anxiously hoping you get noticed. And then the day comes. You get that email/call saying you’ve made it to the interview stage!

Now what?

The easiest thing to say is: Don’t Screw It Up. The best thing to say is: Practice. A simple Google search should produce numerous “typical”interview questions. Be prepared to give answers on any of these questions. Some people suggest writing out full answers but I tend to think you sound like a robot in those cases. It seems like you’re “too” polished. What I did was jot down ideas/thoughts on a question but stopped short of memorizing a 2 minute monologue/answer. Also, make sure that you can answer the generic “give me 2 minutes about yourself” and “why do you think you’re ready for this position” questions. In two, all day interview sessions with 15+ people faculty members, be prepared for those in at least 50% of the interviews. Once you have practiced your questions, it’s time to practice the actual interview.

By now, you should know some faculty members who are willing to help you out. See if they have a faculty friend who maybe knows of you but doesn’t really know you and ask them to give you a mock interview. Treat this like a real interview. Set up 30-60 minutes and come prepared with copies of your app package for them to look at. Ask them to treat you like they would any other candidate.

I only did this with two people I knew but I got some very good feedback, especially from one Prof. When it was over, I thought I did will. Prof thought otherwise, saying to fix X, Y, and Z and come up with a better SoR and research outlook otherwise I’m not going to get the job. It was quite damning but sometimes tough love can be a good thing.

The other thing Prof did (and I didn’t even notice) was goad me into a minor argument. That’s one way to kill your prospect as a candidate. If it comes down to even a minor argument (that you win), you still lose. Sometimes this happens for political reasons like you’re not the candidate that this particular faculty member wants. They really want candidate B or C. If you argue with them, they’ll definitely take that back to the committee meeting and say “Candidate A seemed to argue over everything. I don’t think she/he is the right person for here.”

This leads to two points: make sure to do your background on the faculty to find your champion and it is ok to say you don't know. I’ll discuss those tomorrow. Did I miss any interview background topics? Any other tips?

Getting the "In"

The most difficult thing about getting a TT position is getting your foot in the door. I do think, however, it is a misconception that you have to be “groomed” for a TT position or that you need a direct “In” from your advisor or some other mentor. I’m not suggesting that it doesn’t help to have it, but it’s not 100% necessary.

The best thing about contacts at a university that you want to apply for is that you might have a source for a little extra, off-the-record information. For instance, at my ideal university, I suspect they had some specific people in mind when they advertised their open position. Even so, I applied anyway. I did not make the cut, but at least it was good to go through the motions. Also, I was able to speak with the Search Committee Chair regarding my application package and I got some good advice on things to accent in my app package.

At the other places I applied to, I did not have an “in”. They were the random online submissions, where I had originally guessed that the Send button was just a mask for Delete because they already had someone in mind. In those cases, it is generally submit and then hope for the best.

While I know it sounds crazy but if your app package says you’re ready for a TT position, the search committee will see that. If you are ready, but your app package doesn’t say that, then they’re going to think you’re not ready. That’s why is hugely important to have spent a lot of time and effort on preparing your app package.

In my experience, most of the online submission pages do not list the search committee chair. In those cases, I do think it is good to check with the department secretary to make sure your information is received in full. If they do list the committee chair, then you should inquire with them after a reasonable amount of time (maybe 1 month) to “check the status of your application” and if there’s “any more information that they need before reviewing it”. There’s no need to elaborate further on it. Doing this once is acceptable. If they don’t respond, then either you didn’t make the cut or they haven’t reviewed the applications yet. Also, it’s very easy to brush aside an email. It’s probably better to just pick up the phone and call them. It also shows that you’re proactive. However, do not become a stalker over this. That’s a surefire way to get you un-considered for the position.

In the end, just be positive about it but also realistic. While we’d like to think we’re the special candidate, on paper there are probably 10-15 other candidates at your level that look just as good. The committee is only going to pick 3-4 for interviews. Your CV, SoT/SoR, and cover letter will get you to the 10-15 person cutoff, but it takes some luck to be picked in the top 3 after that. And once you’re in the interview, there’s your chance to shine.

The App Package (Part 2)

After the CV, the next two critical documents for your application package are the Statements of Teaching and Research. During my preparation, I received the whole gambit of advice from having short 1-page statements for each to having multi-year, elaborative exposés on your future plans. In practice, this usually gets sorted out based on the position for which you are applying.

For instance, if you’re looking for an assistant professorship, they aren’t going to expect you to have gobs of info on teaching. Thus, a lot of the places have a limit of 1 page each or 3 pages total. In those cases, you only have enough space for the core points in the SoT/SoR. For teaching, it helps to show you have a teaching philosophy. By now, you’re probably either an experimentalist or a theorist. But in engineering, you’ll need to be able to teach both. Also, you should have an idea about the core program classes that you can teach. These core classes should be pretty common in some shape or form in most engineering programs. Lastly, you should mention a few ideas about classes that you’d like to develop.

On the research side, when space is limited, I think there are only two things you need to get across. The first is that you have larger plan for where you want to be 5-10 years for now because you think the technology is headed in that direction. The second is that you have a series of projects already outlined which help you plan out that 5-10 year period. One thing that I learned (and was asked during an interview question) was “How is my future research different from my current group?” In my case, that was fairly easy to answer but for others, that may be difficult. If you’re not doing something new or there is a research group focused on that already, how are you going to get funding?

And speaking of funding, that bring me to topics that should be included in your SoT/SoR that should be considered if you have sufficient space. On the research side, in addition to outlining where you believe the technology is going and having projects which lead in that direction, you also have to show that you know how to get there. In academia, that’s via funding and group management. Naming key grants that you will go after during your tenure track period and defining how you will set up your group will go a long way to showing your future colleagues that you’re ready for this challenge. This includes the number of students and a rough idea of the cost per year of running such a group. Lastly, adding a section on your previous research can give an indication that you’ve already been trained for this type of research and you’re the right person to lead it in the future.

For the SoT, space permitting, having some good grandiose ideas about novel classes that would greatly add to the curriculum shows that you haven’t just focused on research. These should be treated differently than your suggested courses that you would add because these ideas should be a department or college initiative. This could be something like a minor or specialization within a degree or a course which would take some significant support from the department. Also, look for higher education teaching grants. This would show the department that you’re serious and that you think there are additional support mechanisms which would help you get this started.

The last piece of the puzzle is the Cover Letter. In general, the Cover Letter should be customized for each position. It should specifically draw connections from points in their advertisement to why you fit the position. This is where you can get specific about why you fit this exact position. The SoT/SoR should largely be independent per position for which you are applying. Some other considerations are that this should be addressed to the committee chair if it is publicly known but you should expect the rest of the committee to read your letter. Also, some people say a two page cover letter is fine but I think at this stage in your career, one page should be enough.

The last thing I’ll say on this is to be hopeful but don’t get your hopes up too high. I ended up applying for 10+ positions and received no reaction from almost all of them. All of those positions that I wasn’t successful for didn’t even have the common courtesy to have a form letter rejection saying they were “going in a different direction”. I think that’s a little improper, but that’s the world we live in. If a semester has past and you have followed up several times and you still haven’t heard anything, it’s not looking too good. This can be the most frustrating aspect (not officially knowing) but it takes persistence to get a position. Also, it [sometimes] helps to know someone on the faculty. More on that tomorrow.

The App Package (Part 1)

Let’s face it, academia is a tough world. But if you’re that good and you present yourself as being that good, someone will take a chance on you even if you didn’t come from the best lab/university/professor. Presenting yourself as being that good is as important as your technical ability because you’ll eventually need those skills for commanding a conference hall, a classroom on a daily basis, and you have to inspire your students. Underneath all of this research and teaching is a business. A Tier 1 research university, on some levels, in nothing more than a business. It’s your job to bring in money so you can play in the lab and the university can function (and give you a lab in which to play). If you’re good but not good at showing people how your research relates or how efficient your research group is, you’re not going to succeed.

The most important way to get this across is your application package and, if you are lucky, your interview and presentation. For now, I’ll stick with the application package and discuss interview stuff over the next few days. The app package usually consists of four items: CV, cover letter, statement of teaching (SoT), and a statement of research (SoR). If you’re good at graphics, then make a fancy (but tasteful) cover with an explanation of what it shows. They don’t want to see abstract art, but if you have a few pictures or drawings that summarize your research, then do it.

Let’s start with the CV. Critically assess your CV. If you’re looking at academic jobs, you have to know you’re good enough. If you have a few publications in OK journals for your field, then it’s looking dicey. The easiest way to check is find the newest assistant prof in your department and ask them how many papers they had when they were higher. If you’re equal or greater, then you’re off to a good start. Also, NEVER have a “papers in prep” section. That’s basically saying “Yeah, I was going to do that but I never got around to it”. It screams of saying you’re not a closer. At the very least, don’t give them a reason think poorly of you.

Another good tip for papers is to separate journal publications and conference proceedings. Most reviewers will try to divvy them up anyway, so they’ll thank you for helping them out. Putting them together is a lose-lose proposition. Assuming you have only one or two journal papers and you hide them with 8 conference proceedings, it is going to look like you’re hiding the fact that you didn’t publish enough. Even if you had 8 journal papers and you intersperse them with a bunch of conference proceedings, they’re going to say “Wow, this person has done a lot of work, but why not accent that you know how the publishing game is played” (More on the politics of publishing later).

As for the rest of the resume, make sure to keep an accurate employment history and remember important dates for everything. Since I did not have postdoc experience while applying, I left everything research or academia related in my resume since about the middle of my undergrad. Make sure to have all of your sections concise and not spread out over a page break but do list everything. Aside from research/employment, education, journals, and conferences, list any patents, presentations at conferences, companies, and/or universities, mentoring, key skills for your research, academic service, conference volunteering, professional associations, awards, grants, everything including the kitchen sink. You're supposed to stand out, not blend in.

Another tip I got was to make a website of projects. Your future colleagues probably don’t want to go through all of your papers but if you had a website with some good photos and schematics, that will work wonders. Have a short description, keeping the high-line of the research focusing on “What’s the main purpose” and “Why is this project successful”. No more than a paragraph or two. That can really give reviews a good perspective.

On Monday, I’ll tackle the SoT, SoR, and cover letter. Any other tips/tricks that I didn’t mention are greatly appreciated.