PFTF Discussion: Job talks, chalk talks, and teaching demonstrations

Last month we finished off winter quarter with another talk about the academic job search, where UC Davis faculty Siobhan Brady (Plant Sciences) and Sarah Perrault (University Writing Program) gave us the rundown on job talks, chalk talks, and teaching demonstrations.

Firstly, we discussed how these three presentations differ:

• Job talk (research talk, about 50 minutes long) - what you did in the past
• Chalk talk (research plans, can be 20-90 minutes long) - what you're going to do in the future
• Teaching demonstration (can be 25-60 minutes) - mock classroom or course instruction

Then we broached the finer details.:

Chalk talks usually put forth the aims listed in your research statement (e.g. they can be the exact points you outlined in your original job application packet). Few institutions will allow any type of presentation aids for chalk talks (and if powerpoint is allowed, you'll usually be limited to just a few slides). The focus of this talk should be on your research goals (both short-term and long-term) as well as your long-term research questions. Some tips for chalk talks:

• Speak quickly on your feet and show mastery of your field
• Introduce your long-term research questions during your job talk
• Being conservative here can help - people will see you as practical and thus able to get funding (and show preliminary data, if possible)
• Gear your chalk talk towards faculty; talk about methods but don't be too technical: talk about what equipment and personnel you will need
• People will interrupt you nonstop (in this sense, a chalk talk is similar to a PhD qualifying exam). Your responses will indicate how much (and how deeply) you have thought about the future.
• People often fall apart because of a) nervousness and/or b) falling prey to the potential pitfalls of your subject matter
• Most importantly: practice! Practice your chalk talk a lot before your interview, using diverse audiences (faculty, postdocs, etc.) Be critical as you strive to perfect this talk.

Job Talks are perhaps the most familiar, but we hit on some critical points that will ensure a successful presentation:

• Keep your slides simple, use black text on a white background. Use 40pt font to make your slides readable in a large room
• Use sentences for slide headings - these are more memorable than topical phrases (studies have shown this is true)
• Use clean, simple graphics. Watch some TED talks to get an idea of how to use good visuals.
• Beware of humor in a job talk: it can backfire
• During questions, if you need to buy time to think you can ask "Can you repeat/rephrase the question?"
• Be sure to remain poised and composed if you're battered with questions that seem to come out of left field (composure is what people are looking for). Sometimes these difficult questions are a result of faculty performing out of ego, or for the sake of their peers.

Teaching seminars come in different formats, and we discussed two different scenarios that our speakers had experienced.

• The first scenario is more common in teaching universities: a candidate was asked to teach an intro course that was completely different from their own disciplinary subject area. The candidate was given good guidelines and plenty of preparation time (in this case, they were given a course textbook and told to teach the first chapter). At the interview, the audience for this teaching demo was comprised of the search committee and undergraduates. 
• The second scenario was much less structured, with only one instruction: no powerpoint allowed. The candidate was asked to teach a class as if it were an upper-level course, using only the blackboard. The demo only lasted 25 minutes, and the audience was the search committee. In this scenario, a good interview strategy would be to show expertise in a class not currently offered by the university (e.g. to show your potential fit in the Department). For the sake of the audience, it's also prudent to state your learning goals as well as a textbook, chapter, and figures that complement your teaching demo.

We also had an interesting discussion about "illegal questions" - the inevitable queries about your personal life that interviewers aren't supposed to ask (Are you married? Do you have kids? Do you want kids?). Someone suggested that you should be honest - after all, you don't want to insult your possible future colleagues. Another person suggested ways to deflect the question (and address the underlying concern that prompted the question), without answering or insulting: for example, saying something like "If this is about my productivity, I can assure you that I'm first and foremost passionate about my research..." It was interesting to hear different thoughts on this tricky subject.

Overall, our discussion provided a very eye-opening look into the interview process, and I learned a lot. We ended with some final tips and general guidance:

• Keep your presentations backed up on a thumb drive during all interviews (just in case!)
• At some institutions (UC Davis is one), admin staff will give their input during the faculty hiring process. So when you interview, keep in mind that every single person you encounter is your "audience" during a campus visit. 
• Keep a supply of water and energy snacks in your bag - interviews are exhausting, and you will need them.
• Make a cheat sheet of people based on your interview schedule - note their recent publications, research interests, and other professional activities.
• Never bluff answers. It's better to just say "I don't know". Or better yet, "I'd be happy to get back to you" - and then take their name and follow-up later with the answer.
• For phone or Skype interviews, it's a good idea to dress in interview clothes and book a conference room to make sure you feel professional.
• Make a mental note of people throwing their weight around - if other faculty don't shut them down, it might be an indicator of departmental culture (or indicate people that might have power over your career).

PFTF discussion: The Academic Interview Process

The topic at last week's Professors for the Future meeting was the academic interview process! UCD faculty members Julia Simon and Warren Pickett led a great discussion, answering all of our eager questions (and there were indeed many questions).Here are my notes from the meeting, representing a mix of the speakers' slides and other discussion points I jotted down:

---

Presenting Yourself

Your apparel:

• Don't stand out because of what you wear - the search committee is not looking for a mannequin
• You should be comfortable in what you wear, and other people should not be made to feel uncomfortable because of what you wear.
• The best scenario: your host should not be able to remember.
• Its about what you know and do, not about what you wear.
• Practices might be different in law school, business, vet school, etc. - Know your discipline and its general practices.

Note: I disagree with some of the above advice. Dressing yourself for an interview is both a skill and an art (and should be highly personalized). A memorable piece of clothing (shoes, scarf, printed skirt) can be a conversation point, so don't feel you need that you have to dress boring to be taken seriously. This topic deserves its own post, but I reccommend you check you this article at Inside HigherEd.

Don't be someone else - be yourself, but be on your "best behavior"

• Be positive, and express enthusiasm about the future and the institution
• Be prepared to ask questions - to learn about the new environment
• Know your viewpoints on the questions of the day (in your discipline)
• Keep a lid on your politics - it will not help, and it might hurt. Don't play stupid, but just put on a tolerant front.

---

Structure of the Interview Schedule

• Typically, interviews are a two day campus visit where you meet with the department chair, the dean, and many other people (e.g. half-hour meeting with prospective colleagues).
• Do some homework (IMPORTANT!):
• Learn about your schedule and presentations (even though you might only get it 2 days beforehand)
• Know something about the department and institution
• Know something about several faculty members
• Ask people about their interests, as well as talking about yours.
• Generally be an interesting person to converse with
• Often the search committee is invisible - but they will be paying much more attention than the typical faculty member.
• The most important people you'll meet during your interview are: 
• The faculty in your area of research
• The rest of the faculty 
• The chair (whose job it is to work with you)
• The dean (who improves the faculty, while balancing the budget). Although the faculty vote on who to hire, the dean has to sign off on this decision: so be sure not to rub them the wrong way!
• Be prepared! Understand the needs of the group (e.g. the department) and the reason for the search. Is the search specific, to fill a particular need? Or is it more general: to shore up the group and its teaching needs, to find the "best person at this time?"
• This aspect becomes more important at higher levels of hiring - what is your "vision" (for the group, department, division, college)? What are the existing strengths and imminent challenges?
• Things that you can (should) ask the dean/chair: 
• What is the tenure review process? What is the typical teaching load (and is there a policy for new faculty to have a one-semester reprieve while they adjust to the new job)?
• What is the sabbatical policy? What is the family/childcare policy? - but perhaps consider the kind of institution you're interviewing at before asking these two questions

---

Research Presentations

• You will be expected to give one or two talks (and be sure to understand the purpose and audience): 
• one for a "general" audience, colloquium style for all in the department/group
• one or more related to your research specialty - still, do not be specific for these talks. Introduce the field, discuss various viewpoints, finally get to the point(s) you want to convey to the audience. But avoid too many details; let them read your papers.
• Your presentation gives the exceedingly important impression of how well you can get your ideas across - essential for both education and for research, and more generally in interactions with colleagues 
• Caveat: being a good speaker is important; but you don't have to be the best 
• Most important: know your audience and keep them interested

---

Your Self-Presentation

• Important: know what your plans and hopes are, and be able to articulate them well and field questions
• Have a well thought-out research plan
• What is the intellectual "hook" that makes you so excited?
• Where will the funding support come from? Do you have experience?
• What broader requirements do you have? Collaborators, travel, seasonal restrictions?
• To what degree are you already connected in the field?
• Education: readiness and aspirations
• What style of teaching is effective in your field and why?
• What new approaches do you find intriguing, exciting?
• You can suggest what courses you'd like to teach, but be careful in case a course is someone's "pet". 
• Good to ask "what are your undergraduates like?" - this is something you'll want to know, but also show that you did your homework.

Examples of what NOT do do or say:

• "I'm enthusiastic about research now. I may go into administration when I get tired of research" (said to a dean)
• Don't paint yourself into a corner by demanding/requesting a larger start-up package than is reasonable. Find out what is customary, perhaps get some input on limitations.
• Don't give the impression you need/deserve special considerations (the process needs to be fair to all)
• Don't be derogatory about planned social events - complaining about restaurants, food, etc.

---

Other things to consider

What usually seals the deal: 

• Research Area Fit (you can't control this - this is a search committee decision)

• Whether or not you connect with everyone and can have intellectual discussions during your interview (you can practice and prepare for this)

If you have a phone interview, try to use Skype if at all possible (and remember to look at the camera, and be sure the background is appropriate). Its generally hard to be engaging and sell yourself over a speakerphone.

Be concise in answering questions - aim for a 3 minute answer, then watch for body language and engagement with the person. Your eye contact and body language are also very important - don't look too rigid or too relaxed (no lazing on a sofa).

You'll have to be adaptable for questions about "service" - you can't be sure what they'll ask, and you will have to think on your feet.

Be prepared to defend yourself - search committees may want to challenge candidates. Politely, calmly stand your ground and give good arguments.

---

The Bottom Line

The search committee and faculty are a group of individuals, with different opinions and means of evaluation. What works for some may not work for others. Search committee members negotiate with one another and present a recommendation to the faculty, who then vote. 

The above guidelines may be helpful. But the bottom line is, there is no bottom line.

Fun with Myers-Briggs Assessments!

This week at PFTF we went through results from our Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessments, and used our profiles as a discussion point for careers outside academia.

I guess I'm a bit unusual because I've wanted to do biological research since high school, and even way back then I knew I wanted a PhD and a career in academia. I've never deviated (or considered deviating) from this path. But still, I always find these personality assessment tools fun to look at - particularly from a management perspective, so I know what my weak points are when it comes to dealing with employees and colleagues. However, my profiles on these things are never a surprise.

I am an ENTJ according to Myers-Briggs:

Frank, decisive, assume leadership readily. Quickly see illogical and inefficient procedures and policies, develop and implement comprehensive system to solve organizational problems. Enjoy long-term planning and goal setting. Usually well informed, well read, enjoy expanding their knowledge and passing it onto others. Forceful in presenting their ideas.

Yep, the MBTI has me down to a T. Inefficiency drives me insane. I set daily goals every morning, and I'm already filling in iCal events for 2015. The MBTI rated science and law as two of my top recommended career choices, and I was weighing exactly those two options in high school.

Some people in our group expressed skepticism (or resistance) to these type of personality assessments, but I think everyone should complete one at some point to gain some insight on their natural personality tendencies. The results can be eye-opening, particularly if you're looking to make a change or searching for the ideal career path.

We finished up with some recommended external readings:

• The Search Is Over (Chronicle of Higher Ed) - transitioning out of academia
• How to do an Informational Interview (Chronicle of Higher Ed) 
• Do What You Are: Discover the Perfect Career for You Through the Secrets of Personality Type (Amazon.com - book)

Conflicts of interest and the privatization of the public university

Today marked the start of our Ethics and Professional Integrity discussion seminar that I'm taking as part of the Professors for the Future (PFTF) program (well technically it's the second class, but I was in Alaska last week and missed the start of fall quarter). The topic was "Conflicts of interest and the privatization of the public university," and we had two readings:


Kezar, A.J. (2005). Challenges for higher education in serving the public good. In A.J. Kezar, T.C. Chambers, & J.C. Burkhardt (Eds), Higher education for the public good (pp. 23-42). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

• This was a perspective on the changing nature of Higher Education, where universities have moved from their historical roles as social institutions serving the public good, and towards commercialized ventures with strong links to industry. Our discussion group noted that although some of the evidence were a bit one sided, many of the arguments were spot on: the move towards cost effective lecture-based courses, increasing numbers of part-time and contract faculty, corporate administrative structures, and privatized and commercialized research.
• The one thing this article missed was the impact of technology (not surprising, since today's technological landscape was still very much emerging when the article was published in 2005). Although we also noted that technology can exacerbate some of the problems in Higher Education (e.g. online courses that bring in substantial tuition money, with little student interaction beyond "ticking boxes").

Shamoo, A.E. & Resnik, D.B. (2003). Conflicts of interest and scientific objectivity. Responsible conduct of research (pp. 139-162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• We tied this article into the previous reading, basically by arguing that the new landscape of Higher Education is essentially in conflict with itself (the lofty mandate of pure intellectual pursuits vs. the new reality of students as paying customers).
• Our discussion emphasized that conflicts of interest are everywhere, and not necessarily bad. However, it is prudent to be aware of these conflicts and disclose them up front whenever possible. The case studies in this reading focused on COIs in the life sciences, but our group noted that the humanities are just as susceptible (e.g. authoring a textbook and requiring students to buy your textbook for a course).

We discussed how the incentive structure and cutthroat competition in academia can promote certain conflicts of interest. There were several case studies where corporate financial interests (accepting funding from pharmaceutical companies) led to unethical research practices. I also argued that paywalled articles and non-open access data put scientists in conflict with what's fundamentally best for the public good--especially if the research was taxpayer-funded in the first place.

I'm really enjoying this discussion seminar - we have a small, lively group representing both the sciences and humanities, so its been great to hear viewpoints from a diversity of disciplines.

A Quickstart Guide to Navigating University Administration

I'm currently participating in the “Professors for the Future” (PFTF) program at UC Davis for the 2013-14 academic year (more about that here). PFTF is a year-long competitive fellowship program designed to recognize and develop the leadership skills of grad students and postdocs - I was selected after a nomination and application process. The program is pretty intense, and involves all these things: 1) biweekly meetings focused on careers and professional development, 2) A discussion seminar course on "Ethics and Professional Integrity", 3) a "Seminar on College Teaching" course, 4) spring and fall program retreats, and 5) individual projects (read about my project here).

At our fall retreat, Jeff Gibeling (our Dean of Graduate Studies) gave us a great rundown on University Administration. This was extremely useful, and helped clarify all those various titles you always hear being thrown around (vice-chancellor, provost, dean, chair, etc.). In short, the structure of any given university can be summed up by this neat little diagram:

The Board (or Regents in the UC system) is at the top of the administrative hierarchy. Board members are not usually academics, but rather entrepreneurs, businessmen, or people who have political connections (here are the UC system board members). They are selected by the governor for 12-year terms, and these appointments are approved by the academic senate.

The President or Chancellor is one step below, representing the administrative head of a university. The name of this position can be confusing - in the UC system, the President is the system-wide administrative head of all the UCs, while the Chancellor is the administrative head of one UC campus. Other universities may have both positions (President and Chancellor) that serve different functions.
The Provost is the Chancellor's second-in-command, and the chief academic officer of the university.

The right-hand side of the above diagram can be considered the "Executive Branch" of a university, encompassing all the Vice Chancellor and Vice/Associate Provost positions. The name and number of these positions varies across universities, and they may or may not be filled by faculty members (it varies according to the job duties of the specific position).

Below the Provost we come to the Colleges, Schools, and Departments. Departments are the most fundamental structure of a university, groups of Departments together form a School or College. [Note that in at UC Davis, a "School" offers only graduate and professional training, while a "College" offers both undergraduate and graduate training.] Each School/College is headed by a Dean, and each Department in the School/College is headed by a Chair (who reports to their respective school/college Dean). Department Chairs are senior (usually tenured) faculty members: they may be promoted to this position from the pool of faculty members in a department, or occasionally brought in as an external hire. Chairs are in charge of organizing committees, managing departmental budgets, managing the tenure review process, and overseeing the hiring new faculty members.

The left-hand side of the above diagram, the Academic (Faculty) Senate, can be considered the "Legislative Branch" of a university. The Senate is the pool of all junior and senior faculty members from different departments, who are organized into lots of different committees (each with its own chair) and act as a governing body. This is where all your academic "service" obligations come in. Apparently UC Davis has about 30 different committees focused on various issues: the Graduate Council, the Undergraduate Council, Research Committee, Tenure and Promotion Committee, Courses Committee, Academic Freedom Committee, and yes, even a "Committee on Committees" (which appoints members and chairs to other committees).

Finally worth pointing out are Graduate Groups - these are specific, interdisciplinary graduate programs that draw faculty members from different departments. The UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology, as an example, represents 24 different departments on campus!

This is just a quick (and hopefully useful) overview based on the organization of the UC System, and UC Davis in particular. There can be a lot of variability in administrative structure. However, some things are pretty consistent: for example, you'll always find a Vice Chancellor for Research and a Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.