fuzzylogician

This post is locked because it has been cross-posted in another forum. To reply, follow the link here:

I have a 2-year postdoc but I'm applying to TT jobs this year. Everyone here knows and is supportive of me. If I do get a TT job, I hope to negotiate to be able to stay here for my second year (it's a nice fellowship with some bells and whistles so I think it might be possible) but obviously I'd take the job over the postdoc if I had to choose. Good jobs don't come along every day. I think that's clear to everyone, so there is no awkwardness at all.

Thanks for the update! I'm glad to hear that things are looking up for you

I agree with the advice to make the most use of your papers, and use them to fulfill other program requirements as much as you can. However, I don't think it's that bad to have some courses, mostly required ones that are out of your field, where you just write something not great because you have to and you're not really ever going to follow up on it. I also think it's important not to impose requirements on your paper that aren't part of the assignment. Yes, use your paper as the basis for a grant proposal or comp paper, but don't write your paper *as* that proposal or comp paper. I sometimes see people try and make their class papers super polished, beyond what's required, and this ambition/perfectionism ends up slowing them down. Get the class requirements out of the way, keeping in mind how you might be able to build on what you're doing later, but get to work on that bigger project only after you've completed the official class requirement. This is generally my approach to grad school requirements: do what you need to in order to get the requirements out of the way, continue working on a project as you wish after doing that. Things like comps, prospectus, and even dissertation defense are internal exams you just need to pass. You can work on those projects to get publishable papers you're proud of later, but I wouldn't wait to have an accepted journal paper if my program says I can defend the first draft of a manuscript as a comprehensive paper (for example). I'd defend, then work on my paper without the added pressure of the formal exam.

Take you with him.. as a lab tech or as a first year student? I might be wrong but in all likelihood if you want to study for a MA/PhD, you need to be accepted by the program that your professor is moving to. That's worth finding out about. Also, I'd want to know more about the funding situation and have an official offer before making any other moves. If/when you actually have this information, I think it's fair to ask for more time to decide because you haven't heard back from your other applications yet. Unless, of course, this is your top choice and you know you'll take it no matter what else happens.

Yes, this is important to keep in mind. An unofficial acceptance and verbal promise for full funding is not the same as having an official offer in writing. Don't do anything until you're sure you have accepted another offer and everything seems to be going well. I'm not sure about keeping a second choice just in case but I suppose it's possible if it makes you feel better, at least until you're certain things are good. There is always the possibility of something going wrong but unless there are any reasons to think it might, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to plan for that eventuality.

I withdrew several applications once I was accepted to my first two choices and it became clear to me that I would not attend the other schools whose applications were still pending, in case I got accepted. I also made sure to decline offers from schools as soon as I wasn't considering them anymore, in case that could be helpful to anyone. I wasn't entirely sure whether these schools had a waitlist, but anyway I thought the decent thing to do was to save others the uncertainty of being on the waitlist or possibly getting rejected. I understand how it would be nice for one's ego to be able to count those applications as acceptances, but to be honest in the long run I've drawn a lot more satisfaction from knowing that I didn't deprive anyone else of the chance to go to grad school than from knowing that I might have been admitted to these schools (and immediately declined). After all, I got into my top choices and had a great grad school career. Once you're in school, no one really cares what other offers you had. I think it might have been discussed in the beginning of our first year, but it's not really been a topic ever since. As for your second choice, I think you need to sit down and be very honest with yourself. Are you considering this option at all? If you might consider it, then you should give yourself a chance to get the offer and evaluate it then. If you do get the offer, you will have earned it fairly. As long as you are still considering it, I think it's fair to wait and see. However, if you are definitely going to attend your first choice school and you don't see any chance you'll change your mind, then I think the mature thing to do is to let go of it, despite the possible "damage" to your pride.

I'm not sure that this is actually a problem but since you've already talked to the TA and to your professor about it, my main advice would be to try and change your attitude towards the TA and be very gracious when they try and help. It sounds like they have good intentions, even if their execution is lacking. If you respond negatively, even just in body language or tone, the students will pick up on it and be uncomfortable. That would probably lead to an environment that's not as conducive to learning as in your other section. I thought the language in your post came across as negative, and I wouldn't be surprised if it affects your interactions with the TA more generally. If I were a student in a class where the instructor and TA seemed to be battling each other, I know I'd do my best to stay as far away from it as possible, which would probably lead to less participation and less learning. However, this is just an uneducated guess based on a short post. Maybe more context would help for why you think it's undermining your authority that the TA tried to help with a technical problem.

It depended on the professor in my case. Some gave back detailed comments and would encourage me to meet with them to develop the paper into a conference presentation and (eventually, way down the line) journal submission. Others never returned any papers and it was fairly obvious they didn't read them. Or they would say "contact me if you would like to get feedback" and most of us never would. Funnily enough, I ended up pursuing more of the papers I wrote for these enthusiastic professors than the ones I wrote for the other ones, but that doesn't mean that none of the other ones were interesting. It's just easier to work on something that someone thinks is exciting and (at least early on) it's hard to know what's good if no one tells you. I do know for sure that my committee read each one of my dissertation chapters. I got detailed comments on specifics that made it clear that they had done their job. However, I think this is very different from reading final class projects. Lets be honest, most of those final papers are really just things you write because you have to, that aren't that great and you're never going to pursue. It'll be a waste of everyone's time to give you detailed comments on something that you wrote last minute and never proof-read, and that you're going to completely forget about a few days after class is over. I can totally see why some professors don't give detailed comments unless specifically asked. (As an instructor, it's very frustrating to give students detailed comments that I know they are going to ignore; I still do it because I hope at least some of the students benefit from my comments and I try and recall my personal experience with not knowing what's good and what's not, but I can't tell you it's not just a little bit upsetting.)

As someone who has been following the job market closely in recent years, I can tell you that several good schools in my field are requiring of their short-listed candidates a teaching demo in addition to the job talk. It's not the norm, but it's not unheard of either. I think the point is not so much that teaching is more important than (or even as important as) research but that given the candidate pool these days, they can afford to require their finalists to have *both* excellent research and excellent teaching. It may be that research gets you tenured (and shortlisted/hired), but you can't get away with being a crappy teacher either.* * This all notwithstanding, the way these hiring decisions have been described to me, everyone has their favorite candidate and they will point out flaws in the other candidates which run the gamut from "bad teacher" to "doesn't have enough experience in [thing their candidate happens to be very strong at]," so at some point you have to accept that it's out of your control whatever you do. I don't think inexperience with teaching is particularly problematic when it comes to top research schools, but I do think that *bad* teaching experience does not reflect well on you. Both would not serve you well if you're applying to SLACs or schools that place more emphasis on teaching. You need the research, but can't ignore the teaching.** ** Could someone please explain what doing a crappy job at teaching means exactly? Not preparing enough materials? Not grading in time or giving minimal comments? Not being familiar with the material?

15 minutes is pretty short so my guess is that this chat has two main purposes: first, to get a feel for you as a person and potential student (including making sure that you can stand behind your application and talk about the things that are written in it), and second, to get a better idea of how you fit with the program. I think it's likely that the conversation will mostly be about you and your interests, and how they fit with the professor or department you are applying for. You should be able to answer questions about anything you mention in your application (e.g. past research projects, classes you took, what you want to study in grad school, what particularly draws you to school X) and things that recommenders might have mentioned in their letters. You should also have good answers to "why work with me" or "why do you want to attend our school" and in that context it might be useful to know something about the professor's current and recent research, including their recent publications or projects. I don't think it's necessary to know the specifics of the papers, since it's unlikely to come up, but if there is anything in particular about this prof's work that you admire, make a point of mentioning it or asking about it. Finally, make sure you prepare a few questions for the professor. These interviews normally end with "do you have any questions for us?" and it's good to have something ready for that (though 15 minutes is kind of short so maybe you won't have time for that). E.g. you could ask about things like how many students the prof has in his lab, what his recent graduates are doing, what the characteristics of a successful student working with this prof normally are, or specifics regarding the program that you can't learn about from the website(!).

I agree that without context each individual problem could be a non-issue. If you have an advisor who is not good with email but is aware of that and e.g. gives you his phone number for situations just like this, then it would be a non-issue. If your advisor is usually super reliable but one time gets busy/confused/distracted and misses one letter submission deadline, that would suck but I'd understand. More so if they apologize and less so if they pretend it never happened, though. If they give feedback in person but never in written comments, I'd actually not be happy with it, but as long as it was a topic you could discuss in conversation, I'd probably find a way to make it work. Mostly it's about having good communication so you can work out any problems and disagreements. Not being able to talk about your problems makes them bigger and more prominent, even in cases where they would have been manageable if you could just talk them through. Since the OP doesn't seem to have a good way to address their concerns with their advisor, my feeling is that this relationship won't work in the long run and it's better to seek a more fitting one earlier rather than later. The point is not so much whether the advisor is "not good" in general, because the OP says other students get along with this professor just fine; it's about the fit between the OP and their advisor, which boils down to their personalities and how they fit together, and in this case it seems to me like maybe they don't.

It doesn't matter if it's not entirely accurate, your goal is to allow everyone to save face. If you can say you switched advisors for some objective reason like a change in research interests and not a subjective reason like a personal problem between the two of you, it'd be better for everyone. No one will question the switch if it seems "logical." No one can tell you whether or not this professor will agree to be your advisor, it will depend on their personality and professional circumstances, including questions such as whether they can take on new students and whether they happen to have had prior experience taking over students of your current advisor and how it turned out. I doubt that this is the first time anyone has had difficulties with him, given your description. It's a delicate question how much of the difficulties you've been having you want to share with your new potential advisor. I'd start with as little information as possible and try and keep the discussion on the factual side. If there is any way to explain wanting to switch purely as a change of research interests, try to do that. I do think it's a good idea to get the process started as soon as possible. It'll get more difficult as more time passes.

I would also recommend changing advisors, though no necessarily leaving the program. If he's unresponsive now, imagine how much worse it could get if you're waiting for his feedback on reading lists for a comprehensive exam or on a dissertation chapter, or to schedule a defense date, or to approve revisions so you can file your dissertation and graduate. And once you're gone, assuming you don't find a TT job straight out of school, you'll be on the job market after you have left your school, and trust me, trying to hunt down an unresponsive advisor for letters of recommendation once you're gone is a lot harder, and the stakes are a lot higher, than when applying for a fellowship while in school. Not to mention that if he's not giving you feedback on your work he's not doing his most basic job as an advisor, and clearly you would benefit more from working with someone who would actually read your work. Since you're half-way through coursework, I'd first look into changing advisors within the same program, before I'd look elsewhere. It's unlikely that you could move to a new school without needing to start your coursework all over again basically from scratch.

No, sorry.

Email Johns Hopkins, tell them that you've already committed to attend another interview at that time and it can't be rescheduled, and ask for another date. This can't be the first time that they've dealt with a scheduling conflict, and since they are the ones that came later it makes perfect sense that you have to honor your already existing obligation.

Leave it out. It's enough that one person doesn't like/get it for this to hurt you. In my opinion, your application should be a serious professional document, and jokes have no place in it. If I were reading it, it would not make a good impression on me.

Guys, I think the discussion will be more productive if we concentrate on the original topic instead of some of the distractions that have been popping up. OP, I know some people who got married while in grad school. I think the wedding was as stressful as they let it be, but that's probably true for any situation. You'll be in school for a long time so you can't just put your life on hold until you graduate, so this may be a good exercise in fitting your personal life into your professional one. I do like the idea of postponing the honeymoon until the winter break or combining it with a conference, so you don't have to worry about missing classes or anything. You could really decompress without the pressure of needing to hurry back, and it's a nice way to change things up if you end up living in a cold place.

Yeah, professors spend less (no) time proofreading than you do. Typos happen. Just like you don't want your typos to be overanalyzed, I would do the same with others' typos. It happens that you start writing something, then decide to change the sentence, but something from the previous version survives where it shouldn't. Or that something was autocorrected the wrong way, or that you simply (gasp!) had a typo you didn't notice that *wasn't* autocorrected. It's just a typo, I would not worry.

Part of my dissertation does exactly that. I provide evidence from processing experiments and also from simple judgment data in favor of covert movement, that I argue can't be accounted for by non-movement analyses. Of course I don't now "know" that the covert movement account as I argued for it has to be right and nothing else could possibly be the case, but luckily that's not how you do science. I build an argument that if we buy theory X as it is formulated now or as you might reasonably reformulate it so it had a fair chance for our purposes then we make prediction Y, but if we adopt theory A instead then we make prediction B. I show that several unrelated types of evidence converge to support conclusion B, not Y. Now lets assume for a moment that my reading of the theory is right and we indeed make prediction Y/B and that my methodology is fair and was implemented correctly (you can fight me back on all of those things too, but for the sake of argument it's more interesting to assume the result is really there). If that is the case, then if you truly believe X is the correct theory then you need to explain my data. Maybe there is an unrelated explanation, or you can modify your theory to capture my data; if you can do it, then we're back where we started. If you can't, or your modification seems unreasonable from a complexity/plausibility/acquisition point of view, then this is a strong argument for theory A. It's not normally the case that one strong argument is enough to bring down a whole theory, but you start to build a case for your theory and against the alternative. That's how you do science. Yes, it could be that both theory X and theory A are wrong, but if that's what we have to work with now, then that's what we work with. If someone has an idea for a new theory W that explains all the data in a new way, then that would be interesting and we'd want to give it some serious consideration; but we won't sit there and not do anything because W might be out there and we just haven't proposed it yet. What's more, your experiment (or theoretical paper, for that matter) doesn't have to explain *everything*, that's not a reasonable expectation for a paper. You have to start somewhere and work from there, and I just don't understand this view that "yes, you show that covert movement is supported by your results and type-shifting can't explain them, but what if type-shifting is still right? We can't rule that out so we can't learn anything from your results." That just means that you've decided not to accept evidence that disproves your beliefs, and if that's the case, then we're just not doing science anymore. I don't just mean to attack what you said; this is, for reasons I fail to understand, a prevailing attitude you see among linguists. For some reason it seems acceptable in linguistics to say "I cannot find a flaw with your experiment, I cannot see another explanation beside the one you provided, and yet I just don't believe it." I find it frustrating to no end. How can we have a serious discussion when the other side doesn't "believe" you? We just need to grow as a field. It's not about what you "believe," it's about what you can convincingly argue for. And arguing for something doesn't mean that you have "the smoking gun" evidence that solves Language, that probably won't happen, for obvious reasons. Your evidence is usually a compilation of lots of smaller pieces of evidence and arguments, and you just see where it points. Psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics can provide new sources of evidence for/against theoretical points of view, and linguists need to be trained to at least understand these methods so we don't have an argument that boils down to "I don't like your argument." That seems to me like a major obstacle that these new types of evidence face, more than their actual validity. People don't understand them and are reluctant to accept them as valid. [sorry, this is something I care about. I deal with these attitudes more often than I'd like to so I have strong opinions about them.]

Look, the fact that he will do it last minute does not entail that it won't be a good letter. It just means it causes you a lot of anxiety in the mean time. I'm sure this professor has a lot of other obligations and your application may have a different priority for him than for you. The fact that he didn't get the letter done 4 months before the deadline or even a week before the deadline really doesn't mean anything. This sounds like an experienced prof and therefore he must have existing examples of these kinds of letters. It wouldn't take him too long to write you one, certainly he wouldn't need several days, just a free hour to do it in. He's contacted you and asked for info that might help him, which suggests to me that he is trying to do a good job as much as possible. I suggest resending him the info you've put together and offering to talk on the phone at his convenience. Anyway, as you say, common wisdom has it that if you have two strong letters then a weaker third one won't hurt too much. There is nothing much you can do to prevent this from happening again, if "this" means having someone be non-responsive or submit a letter last minute. In fact, I am going to go out on a (small) limb here and bet you that it's almost certain to happen again. Some people aren't good with email and lots of people do things last minute. If "this" means needing to depend on someone you don't know very well for a LOR, then the way to fix it is to network more broadly. But let me warn you, even if you have great supporters who will write you super strong letters, nothing guarantees that they'll be great with email or that they won't do everything last minute (or past the last minute, sometimes) or that they won't disappear right when there is an important deadline for you because of a personal emergency of their own. Things happen.

I think it's nice of him to want to talk to you, it means that he wants to help and do a good job. You say he only knows you from a classroom setting, so I'm not surprised that he wants you to tell him more about yourself so he can write a more detailed letter. I'm not sure why you are worried about that. I'm not sure calling is the most effective way to go. I'd put together an info sheet for him with the major things that he should know about you and that would be good to have mentioned in the LOR. This would include (in no particular order) such things as your research interests, where you are applying and why it's a good fit, relevant research and coursework you've done, your GPA, your major, any awards or other interesting details about your background. And then mention as many specifics about the class(es) you took with him as possible, broken down by class if you had several. The letter will be better the more details he can put in there. So, anything from interesting questions you asked or discussions you started to your paper topic and grade is relevant. For example, if one of the topics you wrote a term paper about informed a honors thesis or your research interests, mention it. If the reading you did helped shape your decision to go to grad school, that's important. And so on. Help him get to know you better and give specific, detailed examples. That will make for a better, stronger letter. I'd say make it an easy to read bullet-point list, about a page long and definitely less than two. Organize it by topic if you can. Offer to talk on the phone/skype as well and of course say you are available to answer any questions and provide other information if it is helpful.

In my field, postdocs are sometimes posted on the wiki and sometimes on our field-specific websites*: http://linguistlist.org/jobs/index.cfm http://www.linguisticsociety.org/jobs-center Your field might have similar professional organizations that keep this information on their websites. Other (competitive) postdocs might be advertised at a university level so it's important to watch out for those emails that you sometimes get forwarded by administrators. And sometimes you just have to google and go on individual websites for some fellowships that don't do a good job advertising. It's normally also helpful to have your advisor get in touch with people at places that might be interesting for you to inquire about a postdoc. Sometimes funding can be found even if they weren't planning on hiring anyone. Last year I also cold-emailed some relevant people myself, and some of those emails did lead to interviews and offers. It's worth a try. * This is true mostly for North America and some jobs in Europe. I'm not sure all relevant postdocs or jobs in Europe/Asia/elsewhere are listed there.

I'm not very visual so I don't use charts very often. I much prefer lists. Generally, my setup is the following: - Google calendar for scheduling EVERYTHING, including free time, laundry/dishes/etc., meeting friends for coffee, deadlines, sleep if necessary, even. Whatever is not on there doesn't happen. - Workflowy for keeping extensive lists. I've used it for 3 years now and I think it's great. I have lists organized in different ways - e.g. meeting notes (by year, month, person I'm meeting with, topic); weekly to-do; upcoming conference deadlines; job ads and deadlines; teaching; etc. My weekly to-do list is broken down by teaching, research, admin (emails, forms to submit, etc). I make it pretty detailed so I have a good record of how I actually spend my time during the day. I write down the small tasks that fit into a larger one so it's really a record of what I did to accomplish larger goals. While I was dissertating, I added a new list of "what I did today" that described how many pages I wrote and on what topic. It's interesting to look at, now that I'm done. Alongside my weekly to-do list, I have higher level lists for things I want to accomplish by the end of the semester/year, and very vague broader plans (like, grades submission deadline is X, decide and notify landlord about lease by date Y, etc.). I also keep lists for each project with thoughts and goals for paper writing. What I like most about this setup is that it gives me a broad view of what I've been doing which builds over time and you can use to really see where your time goes, and it's searchable so I can find all my notes easily. There is a way to cross off completed tasks without deleting them so I am able to go back to anything that I've done in the past 3 years and look at the details. This is especially useful for meeting notes when you have a vague memory of talking to someone about something a long time ago that now seems useful again (maybe)...

I think it depends on your long-term career goals. What do you want to do after you have your PhD? I don't think it's good to be in a lab with no other graduate students/postdocs and no funding. Word gets around and it will mean that your PI's reputation will be hurt. It's unclear if he could still pull connections for you a few years down the line and whether his letter of recommendation will be interpreted as positively as they once might have been. The trajectory your lab is on really doesn't sound very healthy. So, if your goal is to graduate and leave for industry, I could see the logic in staying and getting out as quickly as possible. In that case, the school's reputation plays a big role, your department and advisor's reputation are secondary, and he might still be sufficiently influential. On the other hand, if the goal is to stay in academia, staying seems like a bad move to me. By the time you graduate it sounds like the lab might either be gone or be extremely unproductive, and that doesn't reflect well on you. Your advisor's reputation and connections matter a lot for hiring decisions. Maybe there is a way to move out of the lab without damaging your relationship with him - e.g., by explaining that you are moving now to avoid problems that might come up if he leaves (which he's shared with you that he is trying to do), so that you can graduate on time according to your plan. If you are able to finish writing your papers with him even after you are gone, I think he should be happy with you. Now, when it comes to choosing where to move, I personally think the relationship with the PI is more important than the specifics of the research you'll do. If the choice is between someone who is known for being a good advisor and someone who is known to work his students to the ground, I would go with the former in a heartbeat. You'll have a lifetime to work on your own research, and I think you can't produce good work even if it's the most exciting topic if you are just not happy.