Just over a year ago, I set a list of five goals to keep the engine primed after successfully defending my Ph.D. and getting married. I figure now is as good a time as any to look back at those goals, see where I am in terms of achieving them, and tweaking as necessary.
The first goal on the list was the following:
Successfully land a tenure-track faculty position for the 2013-2014 academic year.
When I went ahead and set this goal, I had no idea what kind of whirlwind adventure laid ahead for me. The academic job market was in dire straits, and I had not applied for any kind of job in nearly a decade. Nevertheless, I plugged ahead and applied for approximately twenty positions in both mathematics and mechanical/aerospace engineering departments. I soon discovered the pain and suffering in trying to define your academic past, present, and future in two relatively short documents - the research and teaching statements. In contrast with seemingly everyone else in science and engineering, I found the teaching statement easy to write. I appreciate and enjoy teaching, have a fairly well-thought-out teaching philosophy, and know what I can teach and what I like to teach. On the other hand, I found the research statement excruciatingly difficult to write. I have conducted research in several topics and with many different people, and when I first sat down to write my research statement, I was at a loss for defining and specifying my "research persona". That being said, I found the research statement an excellent exercise in self-reflection, and it allowed me to really pin down who I was from a research perspective, what I bring to the table, and how I can impact the field.
After reading several successful research statements, perusing through various advice columns, and talking to a collection of different faculty members, I found the most successful research statements (at least in science and engineering) address six questions: "Who?", "What?", "Why?", "How?", "Where?", and "When?".
My own job search has been fairly successful, especially considering that this was my first year on the market. I have had a couple of interviews, both in mathematics and in mechanical/aerospace engineering, and there is a decent chance I will ultimately achieve my goal of landing a tenure-track position for the upcoming academic year. I discovered that departments associated with mathematics and mechanical/aerospace engineering operate very differently, and the job application process is also very different between the two fields. Mathematics faculty searches look for talent across a wide range of disciplines, while engineering faculty searches tend to key in on specific focus areas. There is even a huge jobs database for mathematics openings, while you have to search a bit harder for openings in engineering. Consequently, applying to mathematics and engineering positions each have their own advantages and disadvantages. As mathematics searches are often so open-ended, there are several hundred applicants for each available position, but there is also a larger pool of job openings to explore. On the other hand, there tends to be fewer applicants for positions in engineering, but there are fewer opportunities available as engineering searches focus on specific areas.
In closing, I just wanted to emphasize the fact that the job application process allowed me to really pin-down who I am academically. I have worked my entire academic career at the intersection of applied mathematics, computer science, and mechanical/aerospace engineering, and this initially created issues for me in the job application process. I was not sure if I should apply both to mathematics and engineering departments or just one or the other, and I was not even sure I could classify myself as either an applied mathematician or as a mathematically-oriented engineer. What I finally discovered is that classifications matter little in the long run - what really matters is doing good and relevant work. The best people don't try to bog themselves down with questions of identity. Rather, they have fruitful collaborations, conduct high-impact research, and cause a stir. So, here's to hoping I stir things up in the coming years.
Update on May 5, 2013: I have received a tenure-track offer from the University of Colorado Boulder to join the Aerospace Engineering Sciences faculty, and I am very excited to report that I have officially accepted said offer. I will be moving to Boulder in July and need to quickly accomplish everything on my Austin Bucket List before then =P.
Goal Status: Outstanding Success
The first goal on the list was the following:
Successfully land a tenure-track faculty position for the 2013-2014 academic year.
When I went ahead and set this goal, I had no idea what kind of whirlwind adventure laid ahead for me. The academic job market was in dire straits, and I had not applied for any kind of job in nearly a decade. Nevertheless, I plugged ahead and applied for approximately twenty positions in both mathematics and mechanical/aerospace engineering departments. I soon discovered the pain and suffering in trying to define your academic past, present, and future in two relatively short documents - the research and teaching statements. In contrast with seemingly everyone else in science and engineering, I found the teaching statement easy to write. I appreciate and enjoy teaching, have a fairly well-thought-out teaching philosophy, and know what I can teach and what I like to teach. On the other hand, I found the research statement excruciatingly difficult to write. I have conducted research in several topics and with many different people, and when I first sat down to write my research statement, I was at a loss for defining and specifying my "research persona". That being said, I found the research statement an excellent exercise in self-reflection, and it allowed me to really pin down who I was from a research perspective, what I bring to the table, and how I can impact the field.
After reading several successful research statements, perusing through various advice columns, and talking to a collection of different faculty members, I found the most successful research statements (at least in science and engineering) address six questions: "Who?", "What?", "Why?", "How?", "Where?", and "When?".
- The "Who?" question concerns who exactly the applicant is and what they bring to the table, especially in regards to the advertised position. The "Who?" question is a question of fit.
- The "What?" question concerns the applicant's research area. What field/subfield does the applicant work in exactly? Clarity and relevance are critical.
- The "Why?" question concerns why the applicant is pursuing his or her particular research topic(s). The ideal statement should state the questions the applicant has answered in his or her current and past research and seeks to answer in future research, and the ideal statement should also emphasize the importance of the applicant's research.
- The "How?" question is the counterpart to the "Why?" question. The "Why?" question deals with problems. The "How?" question deals with answers.
- The "Where?" question consists of three parts. The first part is purely physical - where was the applicant's past and present research conducted, and where will future research be conducted (lab requirements, internal/external collaborators, etc.)? The second part of the "Where?" question is where exactly does the applicant fit in his or her field/subfield? The third part of the question is where will the applicant look to for funding opportunities?
- The "When?" question concerns timeline. The ideal statement should address past and present research, and it should provide a timeline for future research. What are the most immediate research topics the applicant will pursue? What are long-term research goals?
My own job search has been fairly successful, especially considering that this was my first year on the market. I have had a couple of interviews, both in mathematics and in mechanical/aerospace engineering, and there is a decent chance I will ultimately achieve my goal of landing a tenure-track position for the upcoming academic year. I discovered that departments associated with mathematics and mechanical/aerospace engineering operate very differently, and the job application process is also very different between the two fields. Mathematics faculty searches look for talent across a wide range of disciplines, while engineering faculty searches tend to key in on specific focus areas. There is even a huge jobs database for mathematics openings, while you have to search a bit harder for openings in engineering. Consequently, applying to mathematics and engineering positions each have their own advantages and disadvantages. As mathematics searches are often so open-ended, there are several hundred applicants for each available position, but there is also a larger pool of job openings to explore. On the other hand, there tends to be fewer applicants for positions in engineering, but there are fewer opportunities available as engineering searches focus on specific areas.
In closing, I just wanted to emphasize the fact that the job application process allowed me to really pin-down who I am academically. I have worked my entire academic career at the intersection of applied mathematics, computer science, and mechanical/aerospace engineering, and this initially created issues for me in the job application process. I was not sure if I should apply both to mathematics and engineering departments or just one or the other, and I was not even sure I could classify myself as either an applied mathematician or as a mathematically-oriented engineer. What I finally discovered is that classifications matter little in the long run - what really matters is doing good and relevant work. The best people don't try to bog themselves down with questions of identity. Rather, they have fruitful collaborations, conduct high-impact research, and cause a stir. So, here's to hoping I stir things up in the coming years.
Update on May 5, 2013: I have received a tenure-track offer from the University of Colorado Boulder to join the Aerospace Engineering Sciences faculty, and I am very excited to report that I have officially accepted said offer. I will be moving to Boulder in July and need to quickly accomplish everything on my Austin Bucket List before then =P.
Goal Status: Outstanding Success
No comments:
Post a Comment