What matters?

[mechengr2000]

We put a lot of pressure on ourselves to win "prestigious" awards. Do these things really matter? In which ways do they count? In which ways do they not count? Does it matter 5 years down the line? 10 years? Sound off.

[husky]

It matters if you win, but not if you don't. (if that makes any sense at all)

[Teelee]

Getting one will help you get more in the future hopefully.

[Phalène]

I've always found that money attracts money.

[IRdreams]

I definitely agree with the sentiment that it matters if you win but if you do not win it matters not at all. Rejection is the modal response and many qualified applicants will unfortunately receive it.

And while it helps attract more money, it may also have perverse effects. I was told after winning an award in the social sciences that I was now only competitive in the R1 market even though I have a sustained interested in SLACs since the reward is "an indication of being or a desire to be *serious* researcher." This is I found a little ridiculous as a reward is an indication of being able to write an essay about research rather than doing the research and an indication of luck...little else. There are also studies that suggest that when students receive too much free money that their time to completion go up and by logical extension their productivity goes down. TAing and RAing are important experiences which fellowship winners are less able to partake. These experiences also tie a student to the department and academic culture and thus help make grad school a less atomized experience for the nonwinner.

That being said, a fellowship has many boons not least of which is that it attracts more money and potentially higher prestige jobs. Principally it give you freedom and can free you from tedious duties. While TAing may be good for the soul, that doesn't mean it is without its negative externalities.

[StephanieM]

I don't mean to be rude, but how can we say "it matters if you win, not if you don't"? Doesn't that mean that if grad school/job applicant A has the exact same credentials as applicant B, but applicant B won a prestigious award, B gets the place?

So, I think it does matter, especially if you're applying someplace very competitive.

[Kriegsspiele]

So, I think it does matter, especially if you're applying someplace very competitive.

Awards seem to be interpreted as a quantitative measurement/confirmation of your abilities, and therefore they tend to bring about more awards. Yet, had you not got these honors, chances are your achievements would have been the same. Hence, a person should really be judged by their achievements and not the bullet list in their Awards section of their CV. Unfortunately it's often too difficult to measure the value of these achievements, and the awards serve this purpose.

But what is it that you want out of your career? You don't need to be honored to be successful. If you produce good results, and work your ass off, good things tend to happen regardless of whether your're formally recognized for your work.

[husky]

Awards seem to be interpreted as a quantitative measurement/confirmation of your abilities, and therefore they tend to bring about more awards. Yet, had you not got these honors, chances are your achievements would have been the same. Hence, a person should really be judged by their achievements and not the bullet list in their Awards section of their CV. Unfortunately it's often too difficult to measure the value of these achievements, and the awards serve this purpose.

But what is it that you want out of your career? You don't need to be honored to be successful. If you produce good results, and work your ass off, good things tend to happen regardless of whether your're formally recognized for your work.

Yes, you say it more eloquently than I. But basically, if you don't win the award, you make up for it in other ways. Fellowships aren't the only achievements to be made in academia.

[rising_star]

We put a lot of pressure on ourselves to win "prestigious" awards. Do these things really matter? In which ways do they count? In which ways do they not count? Does it matter 5 years down the line? 10 years? Sound off.

In my experience, yea. One, they show people that what you're doing is recognized by others as being a good idea, interesting, a valuable contribution to the field, etc. Unless you plan to start leaving them off your CV, they matter 5 and 10 years down the line. If you check CVs, you'll see full professors that still list being a NSF Graduate Research Fellow during their PhD. Similarly, people pretty much always list being a Fulbright scholar.

I've always found that money attracts money.

I've found the same thing. In fact, my advisor says it frequently. Granted, some of that is because having money lets you get started on the research, which gives you something better to write in proposals asking for more money...

I don't mean to be rude, but how can we say "it matters if you win, not if you don't"? Doesn't that mean that if grad school/job applicant A has the exact same credentials as applicant B, but applicant B won a prestigious award, B gets the place?

Not necessarily. It would depend on what the award is. For example, let's say your applicant B gets two prestigious graduate fellowships (Ford and NSF, for example) and thus has 5-6 years of fellowship time during ze's PhD. As a result, ze never gets any teaching experience. Now, ze goes on the job market and you're interviewing and people start asking questions about ze's preparedness to teach and ze's experience in the classroom. And, ze's got nothing. In contrast, applicant A didn't have all that fellowship time and has spent time as a TA and taught 2-3 different courses. Assuming both are qualified researchers, applicant A will get the job over applicant B in many circumstances. (And, before anyone tells me that would only happen at a SLAC or CC, I just want to point out that the situation I described is based on an actual job search I witnessed at a R1 for a top 20 department. In that case, the applicant B-like person got grilled about ze's lack of teaching experience and, in the end, lost the job to someone that was basically the same except had taught more. And ze actually admitted informally that ze knew that ze's lack of teaching experience was hurting ze on the market.)

[StrangeLight]

Yes, from my own experience watching job searches at two R1 universities, teaching experience DOES matter. They are concerned with whether or not you can teach undergraduates or advise graduate students. So, 6+ years of fellowship with zero teaching experience will ultimately hurt you on the job market.

That said, that doesn't mean fellowships are a bad thing. Far from it. As others have already stated, money follows money. In the microcosm of my own department, students that come in with 2 years fellowship/3 years TAship (our best admissions package) are the ones most likely to receive dissertation-research and writing fellowships from within the department, within the university, and on the (inter)national level. Conversely, students that enter with 5 years of TAship (our "worst" fully funded package) struggle to get the necessary fellowship support to conduct archival research for their dissertation. Not only are they teaching more than everyone else (and therefore being more distracted from focusing on their own work), they have tremendous difficulty securing funding that is absolutely crucial to completing the dissertation. This isn't because these underfunded students are less capable or intelligent. The CVs of students with fellowships are more impressive. Why? Well, the fellowships themselves. They've also had more time to refine their research, write grant proposals, and focus on coursework (GPA does actually matter for fellowships).

When you apply for a SSRC or an ACLS-Mellon, if the "fellowships and awards" line of your CV is blank, that is not good. At all.

I'd be interested to see the studies that say people who DON'T teach are less productive and have greater time to degree. All I have ever seen/heard/read has indicated the exact opposite. People on fellowships get more work done and people forced to teach every single year dramatically increase their time to degree. Which... is only logical.

When I applied for grad school many moons ago, my undergraduate advisor told me to not go to ANY school that didn't offer me a fellowship. Never mind getting funded or not, she said to absolutely not go anywhere that didn't offer a fellowship for at least one year. Her reasoning was that, in order to secure the more prestigious fellowships at the national level, you need to already have fellowships on your CV. If your department didn't think you were good enough for a fellowship, the SSRC won't either. These fellowships matter now because they'll help us get post-docs, fellowships, and major grants when we're professors.

Yes, it's possible to be a good academic and find a tenure-track job without all of this stuff. But the fellowships help, now and 10-20 years from now.

Edited April 20, 2011 by StrangeLight

[Teelee]

You can still get 5 to 6 years of fellowship and obtain teaching experience. I know someone who mentors undergraduate students in lab (average of 4 to 7 students per semester, ranging from 1 to 4 credit research, honors and non honors thesis based research) and teaches during the summer months to get more experience. Very busy schedule all year but it's something to think about I think.