p*****c
发帖数: 20445 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Faculty 讨论区 】
发信人: pacific (hh), 信区: Faculty
标 题: 各位在Search Committee做过的faculty们
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Nov 28 21:54:59 2012, 美东)
你们在评估申请时，最看重什么？
1. publications: CNS
2. funding history: K99, LSF...
3. amazing ideas in proposal: wow~
4. PhD/postdoc labs: HHMI...
5. reference letters
6. ...
我知道各方面都强的当然毫无疑义，但是如果只有1～2方面强，你们最看重哪个/些，
以决定进入shortlist？可不可以rank以上这些选项？
谢谢 | d********m
发帖数: 3662 | | A******y
发帖数: 2041 | 3 #2!!! Not all people from HHMI or NAS labs have K99. Two years ago we
interviewed five candidates, all have CNS but only the ones with K99 is
asked back for 2nd interview. Our newest hire has no CNS but a K99. He
also has an offer from Columbia Univ., our offer is better because we have a
open spot on a additional P grant for him and more. | p******g
发帖数: 498 | 4 可能要看学校。反正像我们这种一般的学校，funding最重要。 | s******c
发帖数: 331 | 5 这种问题根本没有意义，所有这些都是plus，但是不同学校，不同search committee的
标准差别很大，你所能做的就是扬长避短，尽量表现自己的长处，除非你只申一个学校
的一个系，然后他们的committee的意见还有参考价值。
很不能理解为啥总有人问这种根本不会有明确答案的问题，难道是为了bso自己从1到5
都有？
【在 p*****c 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Faculty 讨论区 】
: 发信人: pacific (hh), 信区: Faculty
: 标 题: 各位在Search Committee做过的faculty们
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Nov 28 21:54:59 2012, 美东)
: 你们在评估申请时，最看重什么？
: 1. publications: CNS
: 2. funding history: K99, LSF...
: 3. amazing ideas in proposal: wow~
: 4. PhD/postdoc labs: HHMI...
: 5. reference letters
| j*****d
发帖数: 787 | 6 hehe. good spot for him/her.
is your campus in midwest?
Columbia offer is terrific too.
a
【在 A******y 的大作中提到】
: #2!!! Not all people from HHMI or NAS labs have K99. Two years ago we
: interviewed five candidates, all have CNS but only the ones with K99 is
: asked back for 2nd interview. Our newest hire has no CNS but a K99. He
: also has an offer from Columbia Univ., our offer is better because we have a
: open spot on a additional P grant for him and more.
| t**l
发帖数: 109 | 7 我们学校的新AP的特点是。
每个人在博后或者博士期间，至少有一篇CNS，有的人强悍的，2篇-3篇都有可能。不过
感觉博后期间的PAPER的IF更高一点。
funding,近2-3年内的一些AP，并没有NIH的grant,可能学校内部的grant。
idea:这个就不清楚了。
lab history: 有诺奖LAB出来的，HHMI/NAS出来的也有，harvard,mit,ucsf,名校博后
出来的也有。一个特点就是，有些AP PHD出身就是UC IRVINE水平，但博后也是在
harvard做的。总之感觉的博后出身LAB都挺有名的。
ref letter:不清楚了。
统计一下，发现和哈佛和哈佛医学院的有关的AP特别多。 | H*****e
发帖数: 120 | 8 1. publications: CNS
Help your application being carefully read.
2. funding history: K99, LSF...
A big plus for getting offer. An active one!
3. amazing ideas in proposal: wow~
A fundable story is a key for getting offer.
4. PhD/postdoc labs: HHMI...
Help you get interview.
5. reference letters
I only read who wrote but not detail if above 4 are positive. If not, I do
not have time to read it (Sorry, because there are about ~100 applications
and 300-400 letters!).
6. ...
During phone and interview, the personal skills! | H*****e
发帖数: 120 | 9 Missed an important one:
We often got calls from their PIs. It often secures an interview
opportunity if we know each other well. BUT, it does not change the
decision on final offer! | l*********g
发帖数: 367 | 10 ...
The reference letters are among the most important factors. Or not the
letters, but the names...
do
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: 1. publications: CNS
: Help your application being carefully read.
: 2. funding history: K99, LSF...
: A big plus for getting offer. An active one!
: 3. amazing ideas in proposal: wow~
: A fundable story is a key for getting offer.
: 4. PhD/postdoc labs: HHMI...
: Help you get interview.
: 5. reference letters
: I only read who wrote but not detail if above 4 are positive. If not, I do
| | | n****g
发帖数: 1063 | 11 Match is super imporatant
【在 p*****c 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Faculty 讨论区 】
: 发信人: pacific (hh), 信区: Faculty
: 标 题: 各位在Search Committee做过的faculty们
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Nov 28 21:54:59 2012, 美东)
: 你们在评估申请时，最看重什么？
: 1. publications: CNS
: 2. funding history: K99, LSF...
: 3. amazing ideas in proposal: wow~
: 4. PhD/postdoc labs: HHMI...
: 5. reference letters
| f***g
发帖数: 53 | 12 2， 1， 4， 5， 3。
钱最重要，其他都是为2服务的。要拿到钱，有好的文章和名师之徒都很重要。 当然，
谁也不想要一个刺头。 | p*****c
发帖数: 20445 | 13 very helpful, thanks
do
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: 1. publications: CNS
: Help your application being carefully read.
: 2. funding history: K99, LSF...
: A big plus for getting offer. An active one!
: 3. amazing ideas in proposal: wow~
: A fundable story is a key for getting offer.
: 4. PhD/postdoc labs: HHMI...
: Help you get interview.
: 5. reference letters
: I only read who wrote but not detail if above 4 are positive. If not, I do
| b*********8
发帖数: 97 | 14 要是回国的话，只看1吧！
【在 p*****c 的大作中提到】
: very helpful, thanks
:
: do
| g*r
发帖数: 2116 | 15 绝对是2啦
有k99的证明你这个人会搞钱
对于学校来说 没有比搞钱更重要的事情了
在很多学校评甜妞，R01是唯一的硬性标准
【在 p*****c 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Faculty 讨论区 】
: 发信人: pacific (hh), 信区: Faculty
: 标 题: 各位在Search Committee做过的faculty们
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Nov 28 21:54:59 2012, 美东)
: 你们在评估申请时，最看重什么？
: 1. publications: CNS
: 2. funding history: K99, LSF...
: 3. amazing ideas in proposal: wow~
: 4. PhD/postdoc labs: HHMI...
: 5. reference letters
| H*****e
发帖数: 120 | 16 To clarify more about my comments rather than misunderstanding, here are
some details based on my experience:
Matching is important! But what is the exactly meaning? My guess that one
can match in many ways or one need to match multiple standards, science,
personality, direction, and the situation of the specific institute.
Grant is the key. But how to identify the right one who has the potential
if he does not have active yet?
Our college recruited 3 faculty members last 2 year. We rank between 40-50
in some list (Please do not waster time to dig further! We not top and not
bottom.) These are just for people who are interested in applying these
kinds of jobs. Also depending on department political situation, you may
see different ones. I always say that Harvard is looking for talent and we
are looking for money because school do not have fund to support young
faculty; here, they have to run with start fund. So different is different
in many ways. Here are some details for your reference:
1.A young postdoctoral form HMS level and PhD from similar level. Both PhD
and postdoct advisors are not the top PI but recognized in the field. No
CNS paper. No active grant. He had some inside information (I am not sure
who was helping him). But the real decision to offer him rather than 4
other who had >2 CNS paper and 1 who had 2 CNS and K99 is based on two
things after 2nd interview: personality (everyone liked him! and even now!)
and story! He is not the perfect match. His work is on genome but he
twisted to cancer stem cell genome to fit stem cell that Department's ad.
His personality convinced people. He prepared extremely well on his plan
and the plan for the first R01 (a few key experiments are under preparation)
. The weakness is that he is using cell line not mouse model. In his
future plan, he had clear aim and details for using mouse model. So it is
believable. For this, I told my student to learn the personality and to
read more to make better story beyond bench.
2.A young non-tenured scientist but already got R01. No CNS. PhD from
bottom place. Postdoctoral from so-so lab in OK school. PI is recognized
by old generation but not us. We beg her to join us. In the process, we
rejected a lot >2 CNS and a funded AP who had a 4th year R01 but we do not
believe that he can renew. This is a painful process. She was interviewed
earlier than others but she did not say yes. So we kept searching. We
hoped that if we keep our eyes open and we may find the one fit better. But
almost none have the story to convince all members. We continued for 8
month until she agreed to join us. So, active grant and strong potential to
be productive and renewed in the future are the factors. In this case, I
was a little sick because I believe that the committee is looking for
superman. However, she set a high bar for the rest.
In this process, we almost offered one who from HHMI lab from Y with 2
CNS. However, he is a little shy and I did not see I can make friend with
him (from my view, I cannot vote yes!). Frankly, I wanted to see an easy
going person not a potential foe in the department. Interestingly, a few
seniors felt the same way. After interview, we never contacted him and
neither him. I guess that he could see the answer from my attitude after 30
min talk. We also experienced one with 2 1st author CNS and many non-1st
author CNS. But it seemed that his advisor played big role and he does not
have clear goal. My guess that he stay in bench side too long.
3.A young fellow with non-US PhD and postdoctoral from a famous New York
institute. PI is a MD recognized in the field but not really in research.
But he was very productive. Published >15 papers in 7 year postdoctoral but
only 2 Cell XXX papers (1st author+co-1st). We did not have big hope but
he somehow in the top list (I remember that his advisor called us but maybe
wrong). It turned out that he had a lot of experience to help his PI apply
grants. He knows the system and he is determined what he wants to do so
strong. Although we all believe that he is not the best but he convinced
department chair and some seniors. So chair made the final call. It turns
out that it was a right decision. He got his R01 in his first submission in
his 7th month here! So I tell my fellow that, when one is ready, he is
ready. I saw too many who had CNS but not ready! Especially in this search
, there are over 30 applications being seriously reviewed and, on paper, he
barely made into the list.
From above examples, you may see that CNS can get you an interview
opportunity but has little role after that. Personality and potential are
the keys from there!
Again, these are just for your reference. | s******c
发帖数: 331 | 17 That's very helpful and very useful! I think that is the most informative
post I've seen here.
This is exactly how things work in academia. You can get a job, get a grant
or get a reward not just based on how many CNS you published. There are so
many things that are not less important than your publications for your
career.
For job hunting, I think one common misunderstanding about if you are ready
is that if you have many significant papers. I think that is not enough. One
thing that matters a lot and often gets missed by people is your actual
ability of doing independent work. DO YOU feel that you are ready? No matter
how many papers you have, can you write a nice manuscript and tell a story
in a logic way all by yourself? Do you have a clear idea about what you want
to do in future, how you are gonna achieve that and what kind of impacts
your work will have in your field? Can you write a 10-page grant with clear
and precise description of the current research of your field, your research
plans, the potential obstacles and potential collaborations? Can you
explain or have you explained your work very clearly to a student? If the
answer is yes, and you have papers (not necessarily NCS papers) and your
boss's support, even if you are not from a big lab or you don't have
fellowships like K99 or you didn't graduate from a top university, I say you
will have a great chance of getting a job.
one
50
【在 H*****e 的大作中提到】
: To clarify more about my comments rather than misunderstanding, here are
: some details based on my experience:
: Matching is important! But what is the exactly meaning? My guess that one
: can match in many ways or one need to match multiple standards, science,
: personality, direction, and the situation of the specific institute.
: Grant is the key. But how to identify the right one who has the potential
: if he does not have active yet?
: Our college recruited 3 faculty members last 2 year. We rank between 40-50
: in some list (Please do not waster time to dig further! We not top and not
: bottom.) These are just for people who are interested in applying these
|
|
