I seem to be developing a trend in my coauthor experiences. (3/5) Small N, but early in my career, so I should do something about it now rather than let it get worse.
My coauthors are lousy communicators!
Two out of three of these are significantly senior to me, and the nearest lives 2.5 K miles away. I feel like I am pulling teeth to get through feed back on drafts, Skype meetings to talk through sticking points, advice on areas where I have gotten stuck on a project. Progress seems to only happen when I manage to fly over to the other person's city, or after I've badgered for a very long time.
Full disclosure, I am partially at fault here: I'm bad at badgering. After badgering for a while, I tend to give up and say things like "We can talk about this the next break you have from classes," which is stupid, I know.
So my question is, am I unlucky in my draw of coauthors? I tend to look for a project that is interesting/I have something to say about and go for it, rather than looking at who it is I will be working with. Should I be paying more attention to who I'll be working with? Is this experience with distant co-authors normal?
And most importantly, is there a well hidden secret to dealing with people like this that both gets the work done in a timely manner, and doesn't offend the senior collaborator?
I haven't gotten satisfactory answers from my colleagues, but that could be because everyone knows the people involved, and therefore don't want to say anything. So I'm asking the blogosphere. Help?
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Teaching
If you'd asked me before I started this job whether I preferred teaching undergrads or grad students, I'd immediately respond with the later. I no longer agree with my former self.
These last 2 years, I've only had to teach upper level and graduate level classes at a small university with phenomenally motivated students, and I've uniformly liked my experience teaching undergraduates more than graduates. And that's not only because the prep for an undergrad lecture is easier than the prep for a grad lecture.
When my partner and I compare notes after our teaching days, he talks about his graduate students trying to apply the material in class to their own research problems, or raising points of view they have encountered in the literature of their subspecialty that are pertinent to the material in class. When I talk about teaching graduate students, I feel like I'm teaching to a wall of note takers.
I think this difference comes from the fact that in my field, due to the amount of specialized knowledge necessary, the first few years of a PhD really are just coursework to build up enough background to choose a potential thesis topic. And by they time you have a topic, you aren't taking classes anymore, but learning from the literature, your advisor, and a reading groups that you've formed with other students/faculty. In my partner's field, students often come into a PhD program with a general idea for a thesis in mind, and spend the first years honing it down to a clean, precise, specific question for which the data needs to be gathered and analyzed.
In contrast, the good undergraduates I encounter ask questions that relate the material covered in class to other classes taught in different departments where similar material has been covered as background, or to topics they may be interested in knowing for summer research. The good undergrads in his field are still surveying the subject, trying to figure out what can be done with the tools available.
These are two data points. Its tempting to draw a line through them saying that the less related to the student's current interests a class is, the less interesting it is for a lecturer to stand for an hour in front of the class. But then there is the entire world of labs, and rotations that I have no experience in. So, for other people: What factors of a class makes it fun to teach to?
These last 2 years, I've only had to teach upper level and graduate level classes at a small university with phenomenally motivated students, and I've uniformly liked my experience teaching undergraduates more than graduates. And that's not only because the prep for an undergrad lecture is easier than the prep for a grad lecture.
When my partner and I compare notes after our teaching days, he talks about his graduate students trying to apply the material in class to their own research problems, or raising points of view they have encountered in the literature of their subspecialty that are pertinent to the material in class. When I talk about teaching graduate students, I feel like I'm teaching to a wall of note takers.
I think this difference comes from the fact that in my field, due to the amount of specialized knowledge necessary, the first few years of a PhD really are just coursework to build up enough background to choose a potential thesis topic. And by they time you have a topic, you aren't taking classes anymore, but learning from the literature, your advisor, and a reading groups that you've formed with other students/faculty. In my partner's field, students often come into a PhD program with a general idea for a thesis in mind, and spend the first years honing it down to a clean, precise, specific question for which the data needs to be gathered and analyzed.
In contrast, the good undergraduates I encounter ask questions that relate the material covered in class to other classes taught in different departments where similar material has been covered as background, or to topics they may be interested in knowing for summer research. The good undergrads in his field are still surveying the subject, trying to figure out what can be done with the tools available.
These are two data points. Its tempting to draw a line through them saying that the less related to the student's current interests a class is, the less interesting it is for a lecturer to stand for an hour in front of the class. But then there is the entire world of labs, and rotations that I have no experience in. So, for other people: What factors of a class makes it fun to teach to?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Poster Sessions
A graduate student asked me for advice about presenting a poster at a conference. My answer can be summarized as:
1) Put only a few theorem/results/definitions in big font on your poster.
2) Technical background/details should go in pictures or be described with an eye towards the BIG PICTURE (TM). If someone wants more detail, hand them a copy of a preprint.
3) Prepare 3 talks for the potential viewers, one lasting 30 seconds, one lasting 2 minutes, and one where you talk your heart out to the one person (if you are lucky) who really is excited about your research.
4) The 30 second talk should be the most polished as that will be the one most people will get. This gives an important first impression for people who you may encounter in future conferences.
I'm not an expert at poster sessions. I've presented 1 poster, and attended a few more, and have a good idea of what was or was not an enriching experience for me. I don't like the people who try to keep talking to me after I've decided that the material on the poster is not as relevant to me as the title suggested. I want the presenters to give me samples of their work, not be sales people.
I actually find attending poster sessions (and presenting at the same) very enjoyable. I get to see a lot of research without having to commit (usually) to an hour long talk. I get to have a lot of people come by to see my work, and I get a lot of different perspectives on what may or may not be interesting. And it's often much less painful experience than trying to give a short (10-15 min) talk.
It bothers me that poster sessions are much less prestigious as CV line items than giving talks, even the short variety. Posters are often given to people who's work was not deemed good enough for a talk. The presenters are overwhelmingly graduate student/post doc. As a result, the poster session is seen as a lemons' market, and it is hard to get good people to stop by.
Yet there are projects, undertaken by people in all stages of their career, that I feel are better suited for the poster format than for a 55 minute talk format. And yet, and yet.
So in spite of my preference for this format, I no longer choose to participate in it. It is unfortunate.
I'm curious if this is the same across all STEM fields. If there are fields where posters don't have a second tier status, what is done differently there to change this perspective. And, as an individual, what can I do to attract good people to my poster if I think a project fits this format better than a slide show?
1) Put only a few theorem/results/definitions in big font on your poster.
2) Technical background/details should go in pictures or be described with an eye towards the BIG PICTURE (TM). If someone wants more detail, hand them a copy of a preprint.
3) Prepare 3 talks for the potential viewers, one lasting 30 seconds, one lasting 2 minutes, and one where you talk your heart out to the one person (if you are lucky) who really is excited about your research.
4) The 30 second talk should be the most polished as that will be the one most people will get. This gives an important first impression for people who you may encounter in future conferences.
I'm not an expert at poster sessions. I've presented 1 poster, and attended a few more, and have a good idea of what was or was not an enriching experience for me. I don't like the people who try to keep talking to me after I've decided that the material on the poster is not as relevant to me as the title suggested. I want the presenters to give me samples of their work, not be sales people.
I actually find attending poster sessions (and presenting at the same) very enjoyable. I get to see a lot of research without having to commit (usually) to an hour long talk. I get to have a lot of people come by to see my work, and I get a lot of different perspectives on what may or may not be interesting. And it's often much less painful experience than trying to give a short (10-15 min) talk.
It bothers me that poster sessions are much less prestigious as CV line items than giving talks, even the short variety. Posters are often given to people who's work was not deemed good enough for a talk. The presenters are overwhelmingly graduate student/post doc. As a result, the poster session is seen as a lemons' market, and it is hard to get good people to stop by.
Yet there are projects, undertaken by people in all stages of their career, that I feel are better suited for the poster format than for a 55 minute talk format. And yet, and yet.
So in spite of my preference for this format, I no longer choose to participate in it. It is unfortunate.
I'm curious if this is the same across all STEM fields. If there are fields where posters don't have a second tier status, what is done differently there to change this perspective. And, as an individual, what can I do to attract good people to my poster if I think a project fits this format better than a slide show?
Monday, May 16, 2011
Eggmus: I think he's finally weaned
Epsilon wandered into the bedroom while I was putting my shirt on.
I thought I'd closed that door.
He smack's his lips and asks me to come down to his level. I finish getting dressed.
"No, I asked you to come down to my level NOW!"
Sigh. I'll be more firm about weaning next weekend.
Epsilon puts his stuffed dog to my breast. "Num-num."
Oh how cute. Dog can suckle for 2 seconds, and then I can put my shirt back on.
"No, I want you to breast feed Dog for as long as Dog wants, and I want you to do it properly!"
Yeesh!
"Thank you Ma."
I am soooo not doing this for his stuffed truck!
I thought I'd closed that door.
He smack's his lips and asks me to come down to his level. I finish getting dressed.
"No, I asked you to come down to my level NOW!"
Sigh. I'll be more firm about weaning next weekend.
Epsilon puts his stuffed dog to my breast. "Num-num."
Oh how cute. Dog can suckle for 2 seconds, and then I can put my shirt back on.
"No, I want you to breast feed Dog for as long as Dog wants, and I want you to do it properly!"
Yeesh!
"Thank you Ma."
I am soooo not doing this for his stuffed truck!
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Thank you Emmy Noether
Urania is talking to me this week (I'm being productive at work), so posts with more content will have to wait.
I've been looking for an excuse to post this for a while. Randall Monroe is more eloquent than I can ever hope to be.
I've been looking for an excuse to post this for a while. Randall Monroe is more eloquent than I can ever hope to be.
Tea water
The steam in the shower leads me back
To that New Year's Day when it rained tea water outside our tent.
It was too warm for snow,
Too cold to melt the fog
Hugging the lake.
"The mists of Avalon,"
I whisper.
A pair of ducks drifted out of a universe
they shared between themselves
to see alien life staring at them from the shore.
Startled, they left us only with ripples.
To that New Year's Day when it rained tea water outside our tent.
It was too warm for snow,
Too cold to melt the fog
Hugging the lake.
"The mists of Avalon,"
I whisper.
A pair of ducks drifted out of a universe
they shared between themselves
to see alien life staring at them from the shore.
Startled, they left us only with ripples.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Eggmus: What's the line between pretending and mimicking?
Epsilon loves vehicles, especially the broken cement truck that lives in the sand pit at the playground. He also loves his stuffed dog.
At the playground, the broken cement truck and his toy dog often go on slides, or in swings, or in rides in other vehicles at the playground. He shares his food with them. He puts them to bed.
Okay, so this isn't terribly surprising behavior for a toddler, though I haven't seen a lot of other toddlers putting trucks in swings, but I have a small N.
But it has me thinking, where is the line between pretending and passing on behavior we do to him to objects he likes. We feed him, we put him to sleep. Sometimes, he tries to put us to sleep, or feed us, or push me when I'm in the swing.
For instance, in the area of language acquisition, the current thought is that Epsilon is absorbing grammar as well a vocabulary, and practicing a new skill, not just mimicking the words and sentences we say to him.
What's going on in his brain now? Is he exploring social relations by sharing with his toys? Is he simply copying the things we do to show him we care about him? Is there some other skill acquisition going on?
This is where I really wish I had a degree in child development. And also that I knew what part of a cement truck's engine craves broccoli.
At the playground, the broken cement truck and his toy dog often go on slides, or in swings, or in rides in other vehicles at the playground. He shares his food with them. He puts them to bed.
Okay, so this isn't terribly surprising behavior for a toddler, though I haven't seen a lot of other toddlers putting trucks in swings, but I have a small N.
But it has me thinking, where is the line between pretending and passing on behavior we do to him to objects he likes. We feed him, we put him to sleep. Sometimes, he tries to put us to sleep, or feed us, or push me when I'm in the swing.
For instance, in the area of language acquisition, the current thought is that Epsilon is absorbing grammar as well a vocabulary, and practicing a new skill, not just mimicking the words and sentences we say to him.
What's going on in his brain now? Is he exploring social relations by sharing with his toys? Is he simply copying the things we do to show him we care about him? Is there some other skill acquisition going on?
This is where I really wish I had a degree in child development. And also that I knew what part of a cement truck's engine craves broccoli.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)