I have been recently obsessed with TED talks:
From Elizabeth Gilberts' nurturing creativity to Jill Bolte Taylors' stroke of insight to Malcolm Gladwells' tale of Spaghetti Sauce.
http://www.ted.com/talks?orderedby=MOSTFAVORITED
They all have a unique perspective that transforms the way they view the current culture of thinking. In essence, they adopt the opposite point of view of the currently held belief (for lack of a better term). This isn't fair to Jill since she had no choice and neither was it fair for Elizabeth since she was pestered into a corner.
The people that make the biggest gains in thinking seem to be able to critically observe what we do now and evaluate if that model fits now. Observe is the operative word. Like a good joke by a comedian. "We" get so used to doing things one way that we start choosing to do things incrementally in that same way. (Yin and Yang) Until someone looks around and changes the game instead of changing the rules.
Which leads my strange mind into the last TED talk about what leads to success. Which if you need a link you really aren't that motivated to hear the talk. Being smart was not one of the 8. So I decided to be clever:
Good Ideas Persist. Focused Work Serves. Push your Passion.
Passion Pushes Good, Focused Ideas with Persistent Work to Serve.
So, take a step or two back and look around.
UPDATE:
My line of thinking did not include saying incremental science is bad. rather, incrementally, the science improved to the extent that it could before it required a new direction. Often it seems these transformations in thinking are natural ... but "we" have no way of comparing these transformations to the changes in thinking which went nowhere.
Showing posts with label Career. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Career. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
My First Real Job
So, I have completed almost all the steps of claiming my first real job. The Post Doc position I am in was to expire in October, but an opportunity presented itself at The Storm Prediction Center and I took it. I have been preaching blog-style about FIT and this position fits me well.
It is one I can be excited about since it is all about utilizing models to help forecast severe storms, preparing model data sets via post-processing, and hopefully doing lots of research I have put off in order to learn regional climate research. I hope to be back doing actual modeling of supercells and MCSs.
The journey has been long and hard and I expect that will continue. I know the passion has already returned as I can feel the lift in my spirit. You can probably get a feeling for that spirit in this blog. I also felt that spirit when I volunteered at my daughters therapeutic horseback riding twice in the last 8 weeks. I was missing the service aspect of life and career.
As I learn more about my position and my role within SPC I will blog. Though I am unsure how much I will be able say since I probably need a disclaimer about not representing the government, NOAA, the NWS or SPC.
It is one I can be excited about since it is all about utilizing models to help forecast severe storms, preparing model data sets via post-processing, and hopefully doing lots of research I have put off in order to learn regional climate research. I hope to be back doing actual modeling of supercells and MCSs.
The journey has been long and hard and I expect that will continue. I know the passion has already returned as I can feel the lift in my spirit. You can probably get a feeling for that spirit in this blog. I also felt that spirit when I volunteered at my daughters therapeutic horseback riding twice in the last 8 weeks. I was missing the service aspect of life and career.
As I learn more about my position and my role within SPC I will blog. Though I am unsure how much I will be able say since I probably need a disclaimer about not representing the government, NOAA, the NWS or SPC.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Aha on perspective
I was pondering on a talk I will give at the lab about communicating effectively to the potential buyer of your resume. Part of my presentation was specifically devoted to perspective. Instead of thinking about YOU, you need to be thinking about them. What will they want, need, look for and how will you sell yourself in that light. If you can't you are clearly not passionate at this level.
Upon thinking more about perspective it dawned on me. Perspective is defined as a comparison of views. You have yours and they have theirs. To have perspective, you analyze the other side. Not just once mind you, but an ensemble of viewpoints. This makes your analysis more robust because you can rationalize more about what they want and don't want. That is part of the exercise on perspective.
It would appear in our current polarized society, people pretend to have perspective ... having considered someone else's viewpoint. But the prevailing character has been either a biased viewpoint (one interpretation only) or fundamentally flawed viewpoint from which they can disregard that viewpoint.
Putting it another way, you believe X to be true. Someone else believes Y to be true. The person who thinks X, casts Y in a bad light, discounts the value of that viewpoint and then dismisses it. The whole point of perspective is to acknowledge that point of view and incorporate it. Sure if it is flawed, you should point it out. But typically people think in very different ways, and before summarily dismissing anothers view you need to assess its validity, or validate your own viewpoint. In a sense we always to calibrate our view in order to validate our perspective.
I find the current political discourse to be much ado about nothing. To me it is a lack of perspective from, now three sides, of the same coin. The level of communication is reduced to soundbites of attention getting non-sense or rallies about fundamentals. Some of these issues spring up because people have not found appropriate people with which to debate accurately or objectively.
A third political party has long been thought unnecessary. I disagree. I think we need a third team, who sits on the fence of the argument understands or strives to understand AND then communicate the broader and FINER points of the conversation as an arbiter. A negotiator if you will. An agent of compromise.
It is ironic that we strive for peace in the middle east for generations, and we dont strive for perspective or communication or facts in our political discourse.
I suppose the same happens all across America, in business arrangements (Reality TV shows are predicated on people who fail on many levels to communicate or lack perspective), families (divorce rate is pretty high, plus there is wife-swap the TV show), and friendships.
I can see the broadness of these effects in my microcosm, perhaps even being one of these people who lacks perspective or fails to communicate. ID'ing the issue is one thing. Fixing it is difficult but hardly does it qualify as impossible. Unfortunately it takes 3 people and time to fix it.
Upon thinking more about perspective it dawned on me. Perspective is defined as a comparison of views. You have yours and they have theirs. To have perspective, you analyze the other side. Not just once mind you, but an ensemble of viewpoints. This makes your analysis more robust because you can rationalize more about what they want and don't want. That is part of the exercise on perspective.
It would appear in our current polarized society, people pretend to have perspective ... having considered someone else's viewpoint. But the prevailing character has been either a biased viewpoint (one interpretation only) or fundamentally flawed viewpoint from which they can disregard that viewpoint.
Putting it another way, you believe X to be true. Someone else believes Y to be true. The person who thinks X, casts Y in a bad light, discounts the value of that viewpoint and then dismisses it. The whole point of perspective is to acknowledge that point of view and incorporate it. Sure if it is flawed, you should point it out. But typically people think in very different ways, and before summarily dismissing anothers view you need to assess its validity, or validate your own viewpoint. In a sense we always to calibrate our view in order to validate our perspective.
I find the current political discourse to be much ado about nothing. To me it is a lack of perspective from, now three sides, of the same coin. The level of communication is reduced to soundbites of attention getting non-sense or rallies about fundamentals. Some of these issues spring up because people have not found appropriate people with which to debate accurately or objectively.
A third political party has long been thought unnecessary. I disagree. I think we need a third team, who sits on the fence of the argument understands or strives to understand AND then communicate the broader and FINER points of the conversation as an arbiter. A negotiator if you will. An agent of compromise.
It is ironic that we strive for peace in the middle east for generations, and we dont strive for perspective or communication or facts in our political discourse.
I suppose the same happens all across America, in business arrangements (Reality TV shows are predicated on people who fail on many levels to communicate or lack perspective), families (divorce rate is pretty high, plus there is wife-swap the TV show), and friendships.
I can see the broadness of these effects in my microcosm, perhaps even being one of these people who lacks perspective or fails to communicate. ID'ing the issue is one thing. Fixing it is difficult but hardly does it qualify as impossible. Unfortunately it takes 3 people and time to fix it.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The hunt for jobs
I was recently asked to give my perspective on the hunt for jobs in my field. This came on the heels of a seminar which was a job interview that I saw. I have also been watching too much reality TV (cooking primarily), but this has given me a new perspective on the current challenges of job seeking, interviewing, and job getting.
Lets start with Food Network's requirements:
1. have star power yet be relatable and command respect,
2. food knowledge, tricks, tips, and authority,
3. getting your Point Of View to shine through even the dishes you dont like.
So, to put these in meteorology speak:
1. Publications
2. a complete tool box of skills
3. able to communicate to sell your science (1) and sell your work (2).
It sounds simple. But there is much more too it. People that hire are looking for more:
1. Fit: Not just will you fit in around here. Its more fit in with the people who do this work or fit in with the dynamics of the group (personality), and fit in with the direction of your work and its application.
2. Fit: Is this the place where you will be dedicated and passionate about your work? Can you make sustainable progress on projects?
3. Skill: Do you have the skills now to begin your work, and are you capable of adding new skills, or open new avenues of work?
4. Savvy: Can you sell your work, your science, your skills, and you? Can you make people feel good about hiring you? Not just make people feel good they picked the best of 5 candidates (all 5 could have sucked, you were just the least sucky), but rather got the best fit for the position?
This pretty much sums it up. These are hard things to ask a bunch of scientists who have been hell bent on computer programming their way through publications which interest them or have interested their mentors. These questions require something different: PERSPECTIVE.
Perspective takes time. It requires an analysis of the past 3 degrees, multiple papers, multiple projects, and most of all success and FAILURES. If you have not failed you might already have perspective that has allowed to avoid that part of the journey. Chances are if you are reading my perspective, you have failed at something. As I have.
The good thing about perspective is that everybody has it. Yours, theirs, someone else's. Very few people have the ability to communicate directly with you about their perspective. Frankly, few scientists have the ability to constructively give you their perspective of you without smashing your dreams and having you hate them. Therefore most people won't give you an accurate depiction of their perspective of you...until it is too late. they would much rather watch as you fall off the cliff and as you are dangling there holding on by a thread, you ask them, and they tell you. Your first reaction will be to let go.
And that is my perspective. Harsh. Brutal. Robust. And then you pick yourself up with your new perspective and march on having learned a new lesson. This is science ... just as cut-throat as business. Produce or you too can be replaced.
back to the hunt.
Now that you have your perspective, it is your JOB to sell every bit of yourself as you can.
Where does your passion lie?
What skills have you acquired?
What types of problems do you like to solve and what problems are you capable of solving?
What have you already accomplished and what do you want to accomplish in the next 5 years?
Where do you want to work and what will get you there?
The point here is to have a Plan. It doesn't have to be glamorous or over-the-top. It has to be something you can be passionate about. Something you can talk about for hours. A serious interest. Something where: If someone approached me on the street to talk about "that cloud over there", I could get serious and start yapping endlessly about what I instantly observe. Yet I realize who I am speaking with and speak appropriately. That is the job interview elevator speech for recruiters. The yapping part, well, thats when you are talking to the pro's who want to hire you ... only by yapping I mean speaking clearly and intelligently without making assumptions. Speak what you know and the uncertainty with which you know it.
It is always the right time to plan ahead for the job you want. Practice makes perfect. This includes writing your CV, cover letter, research or teaching statements, or writing essays on how bad you want the dream job that just opened up. This also goes for interviewing skills. Apply for positions you might fit in but dont want. Use the opportunity to practice your interview skills. Taking to people you don't know, about things they like talking about, and spending whole days with strangers requires practice at the professional level. Someday the people you are talking with will be hiring for your dream job and you want to look polished ... a true veteran of the interview process so you can handle the subtleties of getting that dream job. You cant be the least sucky, you have to be the one they are desperate to hire or else they will have to start their search all over again.
Lets start with Food Network's requirements:
1. have star power yet be relatable and command respect,
2. food knowledge, tricks, tips, and authority,
3. getting your Point Of View to shine through even the dishes you dont like.
So, to put these in meteorology speak:
1. Publications
2. a complete tool box of skills
3. able to communicate to sell your science (1) and sell your work (2).
It sounds simple. But there is much more too it. People that hire are looking for more:
1. Fit: Not just will you fit in around here. Its more fit in with the people who do this work or fit in with the dynamics of the group (personality), and fit in with the direction of your work and its application.
2. Fit: Is this the place where you will be dedicated and passionate about your work? Can you make sustainable progress on projects?
3. Skill: Do you have the skills now to begin your work, and are you capable of adding new skills, or open new avenues of work?
4. Savvy: Can you sell your work, your science, your skills, and you? Can you make people feel good about hiring you? Not just make people feel good they picked the best of 5 candidates (all 5 could have sucked, you were just the least sucky), but rather got the best fit for the position?
This pretty much sums it up. These are hard things to ask a bunch of scientists who have been hell bent on computer programming their way through publications which interest them or have interested their mentors. These questions require something different: PERSPECTIVE.
Perspective takes time. It requires an analysis of the past 3 degrees, multiple papers, multiple projects, and most of all success and FAILURES. If you have not failed you might already have perspective that has allowed to avoid that part of the journey. Chances are if you are reading my perspective, you have failed at something. As I have.
The good thing about perspective is that everybody has it. Yours, theirs, someone else's. Very few people have the ability to communicate directly with you about their perspective. Frankly, few scientists have the ability to constructively give you their perspective of you without smashing your dreams and having you hate them. Therefore most people won't give you an accurate depiction of their perspective of you...until it is too late. they would much rather watch as you fall off the cliff and as you are dangling there holding on by a thread, you ask them, and they tell you. Your first reaction will be to let go.
And that is my perspective. Harsh. Brutal. Robust. And then you pick yourself up with your new perspective and march on having learned a new lesson. This is science ... just as cut-throat as business. Produce or you too can be replaced.
back to the hunt.
Now that you have your perspective, it is your JOB to sell every bit of yourself as you can.
Where does your passion lie?
What skills have you acquired?
What types of problems do you like to solve and what problems are you capable of solving?
What have you already accomplished and what do you want to accomplish in the next 5 years?
Where do you want to work and what will get you there?
The point here is to have a Plan. It doesn't have to be glamorous or over-the-top. It has to be something you can be passionate about. Something you can talk about for hours. A serious interest. Something where: If someone approached me on the street to talk about "that cloud over there", I could get serious and start yapping endlessly about what I instantly observe. Yet I realize who I am speaking with and speak appropriately. That is the job interview elevator speech for recruiters. The yapping part, well, thats when you are talking to the pro's who want to hire you ... only by yapping I mean speaking clearly and intelligently without making assumptions. Speak what you know and the uncertainty with which you know it.
It is always the right time to plan ahead for the job you want. Practice makes perfect. This includes writing your CV, cover letter, research or teaching statements, or writing essays on how bad you want the dream job that just opened up. This also goes for interviewing skills. Apply for positions you might fit in but dont want. Use the opportunity to practice your interview skills. Taking to people you don't know, about things they like talking about, and spending whole days with strangers requires practice at the professional level. Someday the people you are talking with will be hiring for your dream job and you want to look polished ... a true veteran of the interview process so you can handle the subtleties of getting that dream job. You cant be the least sucky, you have to be the one they are desperate to hire or else they will have to start their search all over again.
Friday, July 2, 2010
The complete scientist
http://blog.agu.org/sciencecommunication/2010/06/29/complete-scientists/
A classic argument between being just a scientist and being an applied scientist. It is worthy of considering, since science is not just done for pure fun and amusement by the curious. We are, afterall, interested in using science for the betterment of society. Knowledge gains are practical too, since they provide a foundation from which applied science may be constructed.
I took issue with little in this blog post, but I have my 2 cents:
1. The requirement to go out and be social! I like this point but it is far from practical for your average university professor or average young scientist. These are people busy building not just their knowledge base and communication skills, but also their reputation in the scientific community. They are busy expanding their career and acquiring future funding. There is seldom time for such outreach activities. This is not to say they should not be doing outreach, but rather that their time is better spent in the construction and development phase of their career. Personally I would much rather the elder scientists participate in outreach activities and from what I see, this happens fairly regularly.
2. watches and warnings are not intuitive. Oh yeah:
person 1: watch out, their might be a something bad around the corner.
person 2: warning, anvil is about to fall on your head from that coyote!
Seems pretty intuitive to me. watch = prepare, warning=action. See the difference?
The confusion lies in the perception of risk that is built into those words from the culmination of life experiences. I was watching "After the catch" about a fisherman from LA who survived Katrina. He did not evacuate and he almost payed dearly. He thought: I survived before and this one wont be so bad. the gist of his story is his wife floated away, to be found alive 6 hours later, and most of his family held onto trees until they got in a boat.
This type of story is common. The forecasting community recognizes these types of social behavior but there isn't too much to do yet. I do know that an NWS office issued tornado warnings when the eyewall of a certain storm was passing through LA. They wanted the gravity of that situation understood in plain words: all hell is about to break loose if you can hear this message (and in particular, if you havent already realized the gravity of the situation). Kudos to you NWS.
Breaking the myth of how poor weather forecasts used to be and educating the public on how good they are is difficult to do. I was in an airport a while back and a random conversation ensued: "As a meteorologist I get to keep my job precisely because the forecast was wrong". May seem strange, but bad forecasts imply there are tools we need to improve and situations we need to learn from. The publics perception is that we are always wrong (not precise). But that is the entire point we need to convey ... being precise is not what makes a good forecast. Knowing the evolution is much better that getting all the numbers correct*.
*getting all the numbers correct serves a different purpose: Farmers want to know how the heat will affect crops, or how much rain to expect. People in general want to know what the temp will be and how humid and how sunny. But being precise isnt what is promised. A range is always better since local variations will always be present.
A classic argument between being just a scientist and being an applied scientist. It is worthy of considering, since science is not just done for pure fun and amusement by the curious. We are, afterall, interested in using science for the betterment of society. Knowledge gains are practical too, since they provide a foundation from which applied science may be constructed.
I took issue with little in this blog post, but I have my 2 cents:
1. The requirement to go out and be social! I like this point but it is far from practical for your average university professor or average young scientist. These are people busy building not just their knowledge base and communication skills, but also their reputation in the scientific community. They are busy expanding their career and acquiring future funding. There is seldom time for such outreach activities. This is not to say they should not be doing outreach, but rather that their time is better spent in the construction and development phase of their career. Personally I would much rather the elder scientists participate in outreach activities and from what I see, this happens fairly regularly.
2. watches and warnings are not intuitive. Oh yeah:
person 1: watch out, their might be a something bad around the corner.
person 2: warning, anvil is about to fall on your head from that coyote!
Seems pretty intuitive to me. watch = prepare, warning=action. See the difference?
The confusion lies in the perception of risk that is built into those words from the culmination of life experiences. I was watching "After the catch" about a fisherman from LA who survived Katrina. He did not evacuate and he almost payed dearly. He thought: I survived before and this one wont be so bad. the gist of his story is his wife floated away, to be found alive 6 hours later, and most of his family held onto trees until they got in a boat.
This type of story is common. The forecasting community recognizes these types of social behavior but there isn't too much to do yet. I do know that an NWS office issued tornado warnings when the eyewall of a certain storm was passing through LA. They wanted the gravity of that situation understood in plain words: all hell is about to break loose if you can hear this message (and in particular, if you havent already realized the gravity of the situation). Kudos to you NWS.
Breaking the myth of how poor weather forecasts used to be and educating the public on how good they are is difficult to do. I was in an airport a while back and a random conversation ensued: "As a meteorologist I get to keep my job precisely because the forecast was wrong". May seem strange, but bad forecasts imply there are tools we need to improve and situations we need to learn from. The publics perception is that we are always wrong (not precise). But that is the entire point we need to convey ... being precise is not what makes a good forecast. Knowing the evolution is much better that getting all the numbers correct*.
*getting all the numbers correct serves a different purpose: Farmers want to know how the heat will affect crops, or how much rain to expect. People in general want to know what the temp will be and how humid and how sunny. But being precise isnt what is promised. A range is always better since local variations will always be present.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
The passion
It is all about the passion. From the blogs I read to the articles I read to the TV I watch. I am drawn to the people who have the BIG passion and it shows remarkably well.
A few people come to mind:
Seth Davis from Sports Illustrated. He has a personable writing style. I can hear that guy talking basketball when I read his articles as if I were watching the run-up to MarchMadness.
Miles O'Brien from Spaceflightnow.com and This week in space. And its nice to see that since being let go from CNN he is absoluetly immersed in NASA and space and community and people and wow his passion just shines. I think he got picked up on PBS! Even more passion to come.
How about some people I don't know but feel like I have a clue from the blogroll: Madison Richards posts are filled with that passion (though the blog updates come in spurts ;) ). Chuck Doswell also has a big passion for science and photography and calling it how he sees it. I can identify with their passion. And lately both of these people have shared life experience I wish I had heard years ago.
I just completed the Strengths Finder 2.0. the premise is simple. Have you been improving yourself by working on weaknesses or by working on your strengths? Seems silly to even ask that question. There is an implication that by not working on your weaknesses you are ignoring them. But you cant do both at the same time. You find your passion by working your strengths.
Its interesting to adopt the point of view that smart people succeed because they are smart. I postulate that smart people succeed because they are naturally good at working at their strengths. And when they aren't doing that they are probably exposing their weaknesses.
I also like Jaime Oliver, the naked chef. He said something profound: "When I dont follow my heart I screw up. When I do, its like magic".
So lets get back to what I ignored...the weakness. The weaknesses still need to be addressed and only life experience through your strengths can you learn how to minimize their importance by properly accounting for those weaknesses and developing strategies to counter them. You might not be able to close that hole but you can learn to avoid the traps they cause.
A few people come to mind:
Seth Davis from Sports Illustrated. He has a personable writing style. I can hear that guy talking basketball when I read his articles as if I were watching the run-up to MarchMadness.
Miles O'Brien from Spaceflightnow.com and This week in space. And its nice to see that since being let go from CNN he is absoluetly immersed in NASA and space and community and people and wow his passion just shines. I think he got picked up on PBS! Even more passion to come.
How about some people I don't know but feel like I have a clue from the blogroll: Madison Richards posts are filled with that passion (though the blog updates come in spurts ;) ). Chuck Doswell also has a big passion for science and photography and calling it how he sees it. I can identify with their passion. And lately both of these people have shared life experience I wish I had heard years ago.
I just completed the Strengths Finder 2.0. the premise is simple. Have you been improving yourself by working on weaknesses or by working on your strengths? Seems silly to even ask that question. There is an implication that by not working on your weaknesses you are ignoring them. But you cant do both at the same time. You find your passion by working your strengths.
Its interesting to adopt the point of view that smart people succeed because they are smart. I postulate that smart people succeed because they are naturally good at working at their strengths. And when they aren't doing that they are probably exposing their weaknesses.
I also like Jaime Oliver, the naked chef. He said something profound: "When I dont follow my heart I screw up. When I do, its like magic".
So lets get back to what I ignored...the weakness. The weaknesses still need to be addressed and only life experience through your strengths can you learn how to minimize their importance by properly accounting for those weaknesses and developing strategies to counter them. You might not be able to close that hole but you can learn to avoid the traps they cause.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Career in science.
I still haven't found my blog voice (in my humble opinion) so I will continue practicing.
The question for today is what does it take to start a career in science. You have the PhD. You get a decent postdoc appointment. What should that experience be like? What does it look like?
The appointment should provide you with 4 things:
1. A mentor who will go above and beyond to provide opportunities for you to excel.
2. travel to conferences to present your work and network. Think 2 for 1.
3. The ability to rapidly publish.
4. A mentor:
Think of this person as a potential parent. They adopt you after you are all grown up and established. The job for them is to use you to further their career (think chores when you were 18-21 and came home from college for the summer). They are preparing you so when they kick you out of the house, you will be comfortably prepared for anything.
So, naturally, your job is to learn, publish, grow, and become confident as an expert. You also are using them to further your career. Therein lies the rub.
*******
The choice of environment then is critical to success. You dont want a situation where you have to compromise any of those 4 needs. You need space and flexibility for creativity. Likewise you need structure to grow. The ability to give and listen to seminars, paper discussions, group meetings, and project collaborations. You also need time.
Time is relative.
1. Publishing takes time. To do original, meaningful research you need data at your fingertips. I typical 1 year postdoc should come complete with data. A two-year should come with resources to make data and have data be supplied to you by the start of the 2nd year. This gives you time to flesh out ideas and publish for the 2nd year.
2. Growing takes time. You have to be immersed in your field. Hear others speak about current issues and be at the forefront of those problems. This is likely where the money is. You also have to become well rounded in things related to your field.
A. reviewing papers or propoals.
B. giving seminars including those in an interview style.
C. getting perspective from other scientists about research styles, writing styles, personality styles, methods and strategies for conducting and publishing high profile research, etc.
D. learning computer techniques including software, hardware, programming, etc.
E. Learning to communicate at work, with your peers, and to people who don't know a damn thing about what you do.
3. Structure is not relative. This includes working on projects that have deliverables (on a timeline) that relate directly to you and your ability to publish. In this case the project is your structure. You can break it up into tasks to address a problem. You know whats expected, you can anticipate the immediate benefit to you (time is still relative here).
Consider these as general guidelines. The advice I have as I wander down this road is this:
"knowing the path is different than walking the path." It is very easy to be sidetracked on any of these, and it is unpredictable how good or bad the consequences will be. And most times, as I am learning now, different future employers are looking for different things. Some will say your body of work is great. Others will say that you aren't good enough. In a very real way, I am living out both of these outcomes.
The question for today is what does it take to start a career in science. You have the PhD. You get a decent postdoc appointment. What should that experience be like? What does it look like?
The appointment should provide you with 4 things:
1. A mentor who will go above and beyond to provide opportunities for you to excel.
2. travel to conferences to present your work and network. Think 2 for 1.
3. The ability to rapidly publish.
4. A mentor:
Think of this person as a potential parent. They adopt you after you are all grown up and established. The job for them is to use you to further their career (think chores when you were 18-21 and came home from college for the summer). They are preparing you so when they kick you out of the house, you will be comfortably prepared for anything.
So, naturally, your job is to learn, publish, grow, and become confident as an expert. You also are using them to further your career. Therein lies the rub.
*******
The choice of environment then is critical to success. You dont want a situation where you have to compromise any of those 4 needs. You need space and flexibility for creativity. Likewise you need structure to grow. The ability to give and listen to seminars, paper discussions, group meetings, and project collaborations. You also need time.
Time is relative.
1. Publishing takes time. To do original, meaningful research you need data at your fingertips. I typical 1 year postdoc should come complete with data. A two-year should come with resources to make data and have data be supplied to you by the start of the 2nd year. This gives you time to flesh out ideas and publish for the 2nd year.
2. Growing takes time. You have to be immersed in your field. Hear others speak about current issues and be at the forefront of those problems. This is likely where the money is. You also have to become well rounded in things related to your field.
A. reviewing papers or propoals.
B. giving seminars including those in an interview style.
C. getting perspective from other scientists about research styles, writing styles, personality styles, methods and strategies for conducting and publishing high profile research, etc.
D. learning computer techniques including software, hardware, programming, etc.
E. Learning to communicate at work, with your peers, and to people who don't know a damn thing about what you do.
3. Structure is not relative. This includes working on projects that have deliverables (on a timeline) that relate directly to you and your ability to publish. In this case the project is your structure. You can break it up into tasks to address a problem. You know whats expected, you can anticipate the immediate benefit to you (time is still relative here).
Consider these as general guidelines. The advice I have as I wander down this road is this:
"knowing the path is different than walking the path." It is very easy to be sidetracked on any of these, and it is unpredictable how good or bad the consequences will be. And most times, as I am learning now, different future employers are looking for different things. Some will say your body of work is great. Others will say that you aren't good enough. In a very real way, I am living out both of these outcomes.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
genius
I still need to read Outliers, and now Nudge, not to mention a few other books.
However, is genius nature vs nuture? Perhaps is genius more an expression of potential, rather than raw intelligence? Its hard to argue against an initial value problem here. If you start out with a high IQ, and do the hard work, master your creative abilities, and harness both your IQ and hard work then you too can be a genius.
But is a high IQ necessary? and is hard work sufficient?
I am sure there is work out there that shows that people gifted musically have brains wired differently. Structurally identical. Just the individual connections would be more focused and/or more active during the displays of genius. We already know the brain responds to repetition - learning. So it shouldn't be surprising that genius involves hard work and problem solving in creative ways. Probably even in discrete jumps - rapid learning in short intervals.
The brain also acts via chemicals to suppress certain responses when it is concentrating. Just like people who shoot at targets. A shaking hand goes absolutely still as the brain zones in, focusing only on the one action - the release of the arrow, for example. The same should apply for rapid learning ... the kind of learning where breakthroughs happen. Einstein was self taught in mathematics. His genius was derived from at least some hardwork, experience, even maturity, and clarity of purpose. His clarity of purpose is best illustrated in his lack of ability to have a meaningful relationship with his wife and children ... he was too focused on his work.
So genetics, environment, IQ, and experience all play a role ... and I'll bet each genius has a unique distribution of those 4 qualities. So given that you dont control any of these, you might as well work hard - the benefits are obvious. Failing to be a genius, you just might make yourself (and the people around you) smarter.
Perhaps the one quality all geniuses have ... a good challenge. Something that compelled them to work hard, stay focused and motivated, and acheive.
However, is genius nature vs nuture? Perhaps is genius more an expression of potential, rather than raw intelligence? Its hard to argue against an initial value problem here. If you start out with a high IQ, and do the hard work, master your creative abilities, and harness both your IQ and hard work then you too can be a genius.
But is a high IQ necessary? and is hard work sufficient?
I am sure there is work out there that shows that people gifted musically have brains wired differently. Structurally identical. Just the individual connections would be more focused and/or more active during the displays of genius. We already know the brain responds to repetition - learning. So it shouldn't be surprising that genius involves hard work and problem solving in creative ways. Probably even in discrete jumps - rapid learning in short intervals.
The brain also acts via chemicals to suppress certain responses when it is concentrating. Just like people who shoot at targets. A shaking hand goes absolutely still as the brain zones in, focusing only on the one action - the release of the arrow, for example. The same should apply for rapid learning ... the kind of learning where breakthroughs happen. Einstein was self taught in mathematics. His genius was derived from at least some hardwork, experience, even maturity, and clarity of purpose. His clarity of purpose is best illustrated in his lack of ability to have a meaningful relationship with his wife and children ... he was too focused on his work.
So genetics, environment, IQ, and experience all play a role ... and I'll bet each genius has a unique distribution of those 4 qualities. So given that you dont control any of these, you might as well work hard - the benefits are obvious. Failing to be a genius, you just might make yourself (and the people around you) smarter.
Perhaps the one quality all geniuses have ... a good challenge. Something that compelled them to work hard, stay focused and motivated, and acheive.
Friday, December 5, 2008
School
1. Bribe them ... oh I mean offer a reward to learn [Roland Fryer]. Paying for good grades 50 bucks for an A per 5 weeks per class. Great guy. What a stupid idea. Its not that I dont think it will work. Because lets face it, money makes things happen.
A physical reward for EVERYTHING is not something we should teach our kids. What if the reward (learning for example) ceases to be the worthy? What new innovation will have to be created? Perhaps an app from the Apple store? Maybe a discount on car insurance (oops already done). Maybe entrance into college? or the fast lane to a well paying job? damn and damn.
College's look at grades ... sort of. well paying jobs look have standards as well but I am pretty sure they are as rigorous as a university entrance exam.
Maybe you noticed my sarcasm. Please Reread. Oh ... you want a reward for reading this far. Here you ...
Sucker. Made you read.
2. Selling advertisements on exams and quizzes to pay for the copy paper its printed on. Ingenius. How is it that most people bitch and moan about taxes, but are able to donate countless dollars to charities such as schools. At this rate, after paying taxes, after paying insurance, I will need to pay a fee for
A. registering my kid to go to school
B. calculators and computers
C. fundraising for the school
D. sports equipment
E. test paper and ink
F. books
G. bribing the kids to learn
so where does the money go that we already pay?
Its true. Kids have 1 job. It is not:
1. babysitting the family
2. playing video games
3. talking on the phone
4. facebooking, myspacing, or bullying
Its going to school and learning. Learning all about the world in which we live. How it works. Whats been done before. where we can gofrom here. what we know, what we dont know but want to know.
10,000 hours is what it takes to become an expert on something or so I havent read yet.
12 grades X 180 days X 6 hours/day = 12960 hours.
Showing up and staring at T & A, or the wall or the floor really doesnt do it. It takes work, effort, motivation and FAILURE. This is where the reward system may work. Not getting the A means no reward. A punishment for not getting an A. But the reward is in accomplishment, in knowing that you were challenged, and exceeding that challenge.
its the feeling often felt as a child when you do the monkeybars for the first time. or go down the slide by yourself. Confidence. If we associate this feeling with money, and then we teach our kids this association, we will miss confidence. This is something I have seen more of in recent years when I taught. lack of confidenceand accomplishment. The previous learning came easy tothem. they forgot how to recognize and overcome a challenge because they had no confidence or worse ... fake confidence.
A physical reward for EVERYTHING is not something we should teach our kids. What if the reward (learning for example) ceases to be the worthy? What new innovation will have to be created? Perhaps an app from the Apple store? Maybe a discount on car insurance (oops already done). Maybe entrance into college? or the fast lane to a well paying job? damn and damn.
College's look at grades ... sort of. well paying jobs look have standards as well but I am pretty sure they are as rigorous as a university entrance exam.
Maybe you noticed my sarcasm. Please Reread. Oh ... you want a reward for reading this far. Here you ...
Sucker. Made you read.
2. Selling advertisements on exams and quizzes to pay for the copy paper its printed on. Ingenius. How is it that most people bitch and moan about taxes, but are able to donate countless dollars to charities such as schools. At this rate, after paying taxes, after paying insurance, I will need to pay a fee for
A. registering my kid to go to school
B. calculators and computers
C. fundraising for the school
D. sports equipment
E. test paper and ink
F. books
G. bribing the kids to learn
so where does the money go that we already pay?
Its true. Kids have 1 job. It is not:
1. babysitting the family
2. playing video games
3. talking on the phone
4. facebooking, myspacing, or bullying
Its going to school and learning. Learning all about the world in which we live. How it works. Whats been done before. where we can gofrom here. what we know, what we dont know but want to know.
10,000 hours is what it takes to become an expert on something or so I havent read yet.
12 grades X 180 days X 6 hours/day = 12960 hours.
Showing up and staring at T & A, or the wall or the floor really doesnt do it. It takes work, effort, motivation and FAILURE. This is where the reward system may work. Not getting the A means no reward. A punishment for not getting an A. But the reward is in accomplishment, in knowing that you were challenged, and exceeding that challenge.
its the feeling often felt as a child when you do the monkeybars for the first time. or go down the slide by yourself. Confidence. If we associate this feeling with money, and then we teach our kids this association, we will miss confidence. This is something I have seen more of in recent years when I taught. lack of confidenceand accomplishment. The previous learning came easy tothem. they forgot how to recognize and overcome a challenge because they had no confidence or worse ... fake confidence.
Friday, November 21, 2008
outliers
we need to read "outliers" by malcolm gladwell.
The TIME article on the book has a good premise ... it happens to be one I preach with a simple rule: the 10,000 hours it takes to be good at something or 10 years.
Too bad in my field, you spend 12 years getting a BS, MS, and PhD ... then you spend 1-4 getting a Post-doc. Then you are good enough to do Research and teach.
The TIME article on the book has a good premise ... it happens to be one I preach with a simple rule: the 10,000 hours it takes to be good at something or 10 years.
Too bad in my field, you spend 12 years getting a BS, MS, and PhD ... then you spend 1-4 getting a Post-doc. Then you are good enough to do Research and teach.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Teaching
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/07/25/obit.pausch/index.html
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1826574,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
Seldom do we get to learn from great professors of academia AND life. This is the kind of teacher I am aspiring to be. It will take time and hard work. There will be obstacles. They will be overcome.
Perhaps the most intriguing similarity I have with Randy Pausch is his tidbits of information. I always try to come up with these when I have students struggling. I always found these valuable for learning. It makes the goal tangible, it stresses a process rather than an event, and it encourages work. Best of all, you never give up the answer. You show the point on the map marked "You are here". The tidbit could be a compass, or it could be motivation, or it could be perspective. the best part is there are no answers. That would spoil the journey.
Here are a few of Pausch's, stolen from the TIME article:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1826574,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
Seldom do we get to learn from great professors of academia AND life. This is the kind of teacher I am aspiring to be. It will take time and hard work. There will be obstacles. They will be overcome.
Perhaps the most intriguing similarity I have with Randy Pausch is his tidbits of information. I always try to come up with these when I have students struggling. I always found these valuable for learning. It makes the goal tangible, it stresses a process rather than an event, and it encourages work. Best of all, you never give up the answer. You show the point on the map marked "You are here". The tidbit could be a compass, or it could be motivation, or it could be perspective. the best part is there are no answers. That would spoil the journey.
Here are a few of Pausch's, stolen from the TIME article:
Don't complain. Just work harder.
Luck is truly where preparation meets opportunity.
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted.
The brick walls are there for a reason. The brick walls are not there to keep us out; the brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something. The brick walls are there to stop the people who don't want it badly enough.
If you lead your life the right way ... the dreams will come to you.
The dreams live on. Thanks Randy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)