When should a current grad student make their CV public?

[time_consume_me]

I have been thinking through the pros and cons of having your CV up online (on your private homepage or academia.edu, for example) as a current grad student.

Is there a good time and a bad time to do this? What does everyone think?

Is your CV out there already or are you keeping on your hard-drive, only sending it out when necessary, at least until that PhD is conferred. . . ?

[nevermind]

I'm a first year ph.d., and I have a web page with my CV and my research interests on it, in case anybody needs to contact me for anything (e.g. if I meet people at conferences, etc.). It's not particularly impressive (I haven't received a ton of awards/publications/fellowships yet), but it's a place to start.

[TMP]

It's really up to you and what you want to get out of it.  Remember, people will  always be googling your name so you need to get in control of your online narrative.  Also, there are a number of fellowships/grants that don't publish their winners so having a CV online helps people find those people and their projects to get a sense of the competition.

[NoirFemme]

What are the cons? As already said above me, it's important to control your online narrative.

[TakeruK]

There are no cons to having a visible web presence. I would say get your research website up with your CV on it as soon as you have it ready. So as soon as you can spare time to do this, do it! (In my department, this happens in your 2nd year). The only potential "bad" of website and CV making is that it does take up some of your time that might be better spent elsewhere. Since you might not gain very much from this in your first year, if your first year is very busy with courses and quals studying, it's fine to wait until your 2nd year.

[time_consume_me]

Thanks for the input guys.

I'm gravitating towards academia.org so its not really an issue of time. I guess I was just waiting for someone to say that its sort of arrogant to put a cv up that shows your scholarships/etc while still in a department with your peers.

Then again, I quit making friends ages ago ...

 

[Adelaide9216]

I am very visible online, but I would be starting my MSW next fall. Other than having a LinkedIn profile, I have nothing else re: my CV. Is it too early? Should it be only if I do a PhD?

 

PS : Good question and thread.

[fuzzylogician]

It's not arrogant, it's common practice and I don't know why anyone would think that simply posting your CV is bragging or anything of the sort.

The pros have been discussed and I don't think there are any cons. The more relevant question is when does it become *necessary* to have an online presence, and I think the answer to that is *whenever you think people will start looking for you*. Which may be the first time you apply for a national fellowship or award, for sure by the time you go on the job market, and probably as soon as you start presenting in national conferences. This probably means some time around your 2nd-3rd year (assuming a 5-year program). If you don't have anything in your first year, that's totally fine. You should do it when it's beneficial, but you're not competing with anyone and getting there first doesn't win you any prizes. It depends on the individual person and situation. 

[landscapes-of]

A related aside: lots of scholars have been choosing to leave academia.edu, primarily because of its shady, nontransparent profit status and its data policies. I suggest checking this article out, it also includes alternatives: 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/01/23/dear-scholars-delete-your-account-at-academia-edu/#26fedab62ee0

It's a much easier decision for more established scholars to make, though.

[NoirFemme]

Tbh, unless you're building the platforms, you'll never own your own online content free and clear. What about the scholars using Twitter for networking and livetweeting conferences? Twitter isn't a nonprofit organization.

Forbes, the source of the article, isn't nonprofit either--in fact, I'm certain the professor was paid for her piece, but Forbes.com is going to profit for a long time from her intellectual property from the clicks on the article link and ad impressions on the page.

All this is to say that open access requires somebody's cash to start up, and someone will always profit from the free information that drives visitors to the site. If this doesn't sit well with you, then the next logical choice is to set up a personal/academic website to control your digital footprint and SEO.

[Sigaba]

On 2/17/2017 at 4:04 PM, NoirFemme said:

What are the cons? As already said above me, it's important to control your online narrative.

 

On 2/17/2017 at 4:45 PM, TakeruK said:

There are no cons to having a visible web presence. 

 

On 2/19/2017 at 3:05 PM, fuzzylogician said:

The pros have been discussed and I don't think there are any cons. 

From a personal professional POV, there may be no cons to having a visible online presence that includes one's cv.

However...

On 2/17/2017 at 3:21 PM, TMP said:

 Remember, people will  always be googling your name so you need to get in control of your online narrative. 

Some of the people googling your name are going to have hostile intent. They're going to use the information you provide to complicate your life by twisting what you've done and/or to treat inconsistencies as examples of deliberate fraud. When they get going, news stories get retracted, people lose their jobs, and businesses lose customers.

When I say "they," I mean a certain contingent of the American political right that has never stopped fighting the "culture wars." Their anti-intellectual burn before reading approach was embarrassing, outrageous, and infuriating during "Kenyan Muslim Communist's" administration (I kid you not, extraordinarily intelligent people hold this view of Obama). And that same approach has netted the American presidency. They're showing no signs of slowing down. I think a Third Red Scare is just over the horizon.  

Yes, the American political left has its own contingent of scoundrels. Yet I think the moral hypocrisy of many conservative crusaders, and their desire for a civil war, makes them more dangerous to American political and intellectual life. Ah, the people you get to communicate with when you're a member of the Grand Old Party. But I am not bitter.

1 hour ago, NoirFemme said:

If this doesn't sit well with you, then the next logical choice is to set up a personal/academic website to control your digital footprint and SEO.

Another choice is to minimize one's digital footprint by emphasizing PERSEC. If not physical mail and fax machines, then maybe, at least initially, discrete uses of file sharing services with limited download windows, and software that allows for certain levels of security. Simultaneously, set up social media accounts that separate completely the personal from the personal professional.

[TakeruK]

@Sigaba is certainly right about online security. My answer was in the context of given that you are going to have a web presence for your academic life, there's no cons to putting up a CV in your first year vs. your 4th year (or after graduation) other than what I wrote about having better use of your time/efforts. That said, as @Sigaba advised, one should certainly be mindful of what gets put up there! 

Personally, I chose to not separate my personal and professional social media. Well just barely: Facebook for social/personal interactions with both my friends and professional colleagues which whom I choose to have personal/social connections in addition to professional ones. I use Twitter for more professional interactions and for posting things that most of my Facebook friends (family and non-academic friends mostly) would not find interesting (e.g. oh look I found a new algorithm that does X 4% faster! or tweeting at conferences).

I made this choice for myself because I do not want people to see me as "only" a scientist. By "people", I mean my professional colleagues as well as the general public. I think part of removing the ivory tower image of academics is to show that academics are people first and their profession second. In addition, I freely post political stuff and advocate strongly for what I think our field should do in regards to equality etc. I know that this is counter to some advice (e.g. by "The Professor is In") and due to my junior status in my field, I have a lot less protections than if a tenured professor posted similar opinions. However, I decided that I can't just wait until tenure to be the "real" me (and I may never get there anyways). I think I can do more good by being outspoken now than potential harm (and that the downsides, to me, are worth it). 

And finally, I feel an obligation to do things within my power and to speak out where I can because in general, I'm in the majority group for my field. To me, I believe that if there is a reasonable action I could take that will help people, it's my moral obligation to do so.

[Sigaba]

3 hours ago, TakeruK said:

I think part of removing the ivory tower image of academics is to show that academics are people first and their profession second. In addition, I freely post political stuff and advocate strongly for what I think our field should do in regards to equality etc. I know that this is counter to some advice (e.g. by "The Professor is In") and due to my junior status in my field, I have a lot less protections than if a tenured professor posted similar opinions. However, I decided that I can't just wait until tenure to be the "real" me (and I may never get there anyways). I think I can do more good by being outspoken now than potential harm (and that the downsides, to me, are worth it). 

And finally, I feel an obligation to do things within my power and to speak out where I can because in general, I'm in the majority group for my field. To me, I believe that if there is a reasonable action I could take that will help people, it's my moral obligation to do so.

Although my sensibilities regarding professionalism differ from yours and I disagree with some of your positions on key issues, I have always respected you for your intellectual and moral consistency, as well as your willingness to put yourself  "out there."

[TakeruK]

1 hour ago, Sigaba said:

Although my sensibilities regarding professionalism differ from yours and I disagree with some of your positions on key issues, I have always respected you for your intellectual and moral consistency, as well as your willingness to put yourself  "out there."

The feeling is mutual! 

[landscapes-of]

16 hours ago, NoirFemme said:

Forbes, the source of the article, isn't nonprofit either--in fact, I'm certain the professor was paid for her piece, but Forbes.com is going to profit for a long time from her intellectual property from the clicks on the article link and ad impressions on the page.

This is a great and telling point, because so much paid (and click-generated) content is snipped from twitter, including much of that piece. It's something to remember. We're already pretty (I think) conscious of how our twitter presences represent us as scholars, but it can also serve as extensions of our work, which can then be literally reproduced by content farms. (There's plenty of literature out there about how Buzzfeed makes money off of people's tweets, for example.) We're expected to see this as maybe a good thing, or something, because it's exposure, but it isn't always best for us. (Or: it's pretty much always unfair, even if there's nothing we can do about it.) ("I'm certain the professor was paid" is telling too, because most people don't know whether authors got paid for the work they do producing content for these companies. Forbes does pay its web contributors, although it hasn't always.)

The more pressing practical points when it comes to academia.edu are: 1. it is (increasingly) unstable, and should not be seen as a long-term repository--if it goes under, your stuff likely goes with it (we should assume this of all technology, but we forget) and 2. by signing up, you consent to allow them to sell or transfer your personal information and data, and their law enforcement disclosure policy is (to my eyes) a lot more liberal than twitter's. There's also a licensing policy worth paying attention to, same as any social media platform but with complications given its function. 

[qkhitai]

On 19/02/2017 at 11:03 PM, Adelaide9216 said:

I am very visible online, but I would be starting my MSW next fall. Other than having a LinkedIn profile, I have nothing else re: my CV. Is it too early? Should it be only if I do a PhD?

 

PS : Good question and thread.

I had my CV (sparse as it was back then) online on academia.edu in my first year as an undergraduate. I've often seen other undergraduate and MA students post their own academic CV's online as well - it's certainly not a PhD only thing.

[dr. t]

On 2/23/2017 at 3:46 PM, TakeruK said:

The feeling is mutual! 

I'm going to cry.

[time_consume_me]

I am very glad that this thread enticed so many great comments.

 

Thanks a lot for your opinions, everyone.