Jeannette Wing, former CSD chair now at the NSF, came back to give her famous talk "Tips on the Job Interview Process". I was one of the "younger" grad students there-- since it had been three years since the last time she gave the talk there's the potential it wouldn't be given again in time for me to graduate. Also, sometimes the interview process for internships is similar.
Slides from the 2005 version of the talk.
Showing posts with label grad school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grad school. Show all posts
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Boycotting assistant professorships
I'm currently reading A Ph.D. Is Not Enough: A Guide To Survival In Science. There is one chapter devoted to deciding on a career path, mainly between academia and industry/government.
It brings up some good arguments against going into academia. One oft-cited reason is the "begging for money"-- while you have the freedom to study whatever you like, you're limited by what you can find funding for. One thing that isn't often mentioned is that even fully-tenured professors still don't get to do whatever they like. By the time someone has tenure they're pretty well-known and have a lot of administrative stuff to take care of. Giving invited talks and schmoozing with NSF officials tends to crowd out time to spend meeting with students, never mind actually doing nitty-gritty research like they did in the golden days of grad school.
According to the chapter, junior professors generally have that minus the job security. Grants are often awarded based on track-record, which junior profs haven't had time to get. Also, in the first few years they need to start teaching courses from scratch rather than re-using things from past years. And, of course, they need to make a place for themselves in the community by reviewing papers, serving on PCs, writing papers, mentoring students, etc. Then, if they don't get tenure, they have to go away and start all over somewhere else.
Feibelman makes an argument that we simply shouldn't stand for that. By accepting an asst. prof job as-is, one consents to that mistreatment by The Man. And the intense competition that goes on for these few prized positions isn't giving The Man any incentive to change the way he does things. Feibelman suggests that one closely evaluate his or her priorities and recognize the inherent bias one who's spent so long in school may have toward academia (as in, we want to emulate our heroic advisors). He also suggests the option of making a name for oneself in industry/government labs and then walking right up to a university and getting a tenured or almost-tenured job right away.
I would tend to agree that a 6+ year hazing period, if that is indeed what it is, isn't good for the system. It appears from the outside that of the set of {JuniorProfessorship, Sleep, Family}, a mortal being can pick two at most. And whining about it won't do jack until enough sought-after PhDs start making ultimatums. However, I am not convinced that the ones fighting for professorships are going into it blindly. Anybody who's been in grad school for a few months knows the demands on their professors. People who have a choice between academia and industry and choose academia are usually willing to make sacrifices somewhere, whether it means their family or their hobbies or their health. Scientific research is the greater good. People who actually score academic jobs probably have done little else besides work for the last 10 years of their life-- if they didn't like it that way they would have changed some time ago. It works for them.
On the other hand, being focused to the point of peripheral blindness does somewhat correlate with being in grad school, so maybe some people are shooting for academia without knowing all the costs.
It brings up some good arguments against going into academia. One oft-cited reason is the "begging for money"-- while you have the freedom to study whatever you like, you're limited by what you can find funding for. One thing that isn't often mentioned is that even fully-tenured professors still don't get to do whatever they like. By the time someone has tenure they're pretty well-known and have a lot of administrative stuff to take care of. Giving invited talks and schmoozing with NSF officials tends to crowd out time to spend meeting with students, never mind actually doing nitty-gritty research like they did in the golden days of grad school.
According to the chapter, junior professors generally have that minus the job security. Grants are often awarded based on track-record, which junior profs haven't had time to get. Also, in the first few years they need to start teaching courses from scratch rather than re-using things from past years. And, of course, they need to make a place for themselves in the community by reviewing papers, serving on PCs, writing papers, mentoring students, etc. Then, if they don't get tenure, they have to go away and start all over somewhere else.
Feibelman makes an argument that we simply shouldn't stand for that. By accepting an asst. prof job as-is, one consents to that mistreatment by The Man. And the intense competition that goes on for these few prized positions isn't giving The Man any incentive to change the way he does things. Feibelman suggests that one closely evaluate his or her priorities and recognize the inherent bias one who's spent so long in school may have toward academia (as in, we want to emulate our heroic advisors). He also suggests the option of making a name for oneself in industry/government labs and then walking right up to a university and getting a tenured or almost-tenured job right away.
I would tend to agree that a 6+ year hazing period, if that is indeed what it is, isn't good for the system. It appears from the outside that of the set of {JuniorProfessorship, Sleep, Family}, a mortal being can pick two at most. And whining about it won't do jack until enough sought-after PhDs start making ultimatums. However, I am not convinced that the ones fighting for professorships are going into it blindly. Anybody who's been in grad school for a few months knows the demands on their professors. People who have a choice between academia and industry and choose academia are usually willing to make sacrifices somewhere, whether it means their family or their hobbies or their health. Scientific research is the greater good. People who actually score academic jobs probably have done little else besides work for the last 10 years of their life-- if they didn't like it that way they would have changed some time ago. It works for them.
On the other hand, being focused to the point of peripheral blindness does somewhat correlate with being in grad school, so maybe some people are shooting for academia without knowing all the costs.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Bad Computer Science Writing
I just now ran across a 1997 writing of Jonathan Shewchuk: Three Sins of Authors in Computer Science and Math. They are:
1. Grandmothering. That is, writing an introduction that does not tell what the paper is really about, often making it both inaccessible to newbies and obvious and irrelevant to experts.
2. A paragraph-long table of contents in the introduction. (e.g. "In section 2 we survey related work. In section 3 we go over some preliminaries...")
3. Essentially copy-pasting the introduction into the conclusions.
I've been guilty of at least the last two simply out of the oral tradition of CS folk. Oops. I did always think the Table of Contents thing, while logical for book introductions, was a little silly for an 8-page paper where you're already worried about space. As #3, I suspect it's to make sure reviewers do have a "takeaway" message, in case they're too lazy to go back and read your introduction. However, if you have to re-state all your major findings on the last page in order for people to figure out what you've done, then the rest of your paper must have been poorly-written.
I am rather ashamed at how my writing skills have slipped since I changed majors five years ago. I could probably still pass freshman comp (and I have it easier than many of my fellow grad students since I get to write in my native language), but it's nothing like I could in the heyday of my high school journalism career.
1. Grandmothering. That is, writing an introduction that does not tell what the paper is really about, often making it both inaccessible to newbies and obvious and irrelevant to experts.
2. A paragraph-long table of contents in the introduction. (e.g. "In section 2 we survey related work. In section 3 we go over some preliminaries...")
3. Essentially copy-pasting the introduction into the conclusions.
I've been guilty of at least the last two simply out of the oral tradition of CS folk. Oops. I did always think the Table of Contents thing, while logical for book introductions, was a little silly for an 8-page paper where you're already worried about space. As #3, I suspect it's to make sure reviewers do have a "takeaway" message, in case they're too lazy to go back and read your introduction. However, if you have to re-state all your major findings on the last page in order for people to figure out what you've done, then the rest of your paper must have been poorly-written.
I am rather ashamed at how my writing skills have slipped since I changed majors five years ago. I could probably still pass freshman comp (and I have it easier than many of my fellow grad students since I get to write in my native language), but it's nothing like I could in the heyday of my high school journalism career.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Emailing prospective schools
FemaleScienceProfessor has a post on pre-accepted students writing professors for advice on grad school, queries regarding availability, etc.
In the end, I don't think that e-mailing professors in such a manner actually helps your application. What does help is *real* getting your foot in the door, such as doing REU's or other summer programs available, or getting a job as a research programmer (this is good if you're wanting to take a year "off" between degrees anyway). Asking professors about this sort of availability is a good idea-- the programs aren't always easy to find on department main pages. Of course, you have to do that a year before your apps are due.
Also, if you have the opportunity to go to a conference while you're an undergrad is helpful-- you get more of a chance to demonstrate you know what you're talking about. And if nothing else you can at least talk to other grad students, who are less intimidating and more likely to ask you to join them for a beer.
In the end, I don't think that e-mailing professors in such a manner actually helps your application. What does help is *real* getting your foot in the door, such as doing REU's or other summer programs available, or getting a job as a research programmer (this is good if you're wanting to take a year "off" between degrees anyway). Asking professors about this sort of availability is a good idea-- the programs aren't always easy to find on department main pages. Of course, you have to do that a year before your apps are due.
Also, if you have the opportunity to go to a conference while you're an undergrad is helpful-- you get more of a chance to demonstrate you know what you're talking about. And if nothing else you can at least talk to other grad students, who are less intimidating and more likely to ask you to join them for a beer.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Consequences of geographic distance and social networks
A well-known phenomenon here at CMU SCS is the NewellSimon-Wean barrier. There are several sub-departments of SCS-- including Computer Science, Machine Learning, Language Technologies, Robotics, Human-Computer Interaction, Software Research, and probably others I've forgotten. CSD, MLD, and ISR are in Wean; LTI, HCII, and robotics are in NSH. (Then there are students with offices in Doherty or the CIC, etc) There is a covered bridge about 20m long connecting the two buildings.
And yet somehow I know disproportionately more students in CSD, MLD, and ISR than in the others, even though LTI and Robotics have more overlap with my department in terms of research interests. I think this has to do with socializing factors. The NSH departments have their own lounges, where all the departments in Wean share a lounge (ISR and MLD are both fairly small). Each department has their own social organization to some extent, but the all-SCS social organization, Dec/5, is mostly CSD and ISR people (with growing MLD representation). Even though all of our events happen in Newell-Simon, and I believe our happy hours are well-attended by both buildings.
Of course, anecdotal evidence reveals that Dec/5 participation has a lot to do with personal connections. It is a time commitment, after all, and it's very easy to flake out on volunteer organizations because any given graduate student is "too busy". It's not so easy to do that if your best buddy is in the organization too and will have to pick up the slack. While we get a lot of great volunteers toward the beginning of the semester, once November/April hits it becomes very difficult to put on a TG (happy hour) and for the most part only people in the central "clique" sign up to help out-- and usually out of peer pressure. I also recognize that if I'm not friends with people I'm volunteering with, even if I like them as people, I'm going to get kind of bored.
This makes me think that the key to retaining Dec/5 volunteers is to integrate them in quickly though separate social activities. If they can become friends with existing committed folks, they're more likely to become committed themselves.
And yet somehow I know disproportionately more students in CSD, MLD, and ISR than in the others, even though LTI and Robotics have more overlap with my department in terms of research interests. I think this has to do with socializing factors. The NSH departments have their own lounges, where all the departments in Wean share a lounge (ISR and MLD are both fairly small). Each department has their own social organization to some extent, but the all-SCS social organization, Dec/5, is mostly CSD and ISR people (with growing MLD representation). Even though all of our events happen in Newell-Simon, and I believe our happy hours are well-attended by both buildings.
Of course, anecdotal evidence reveals that Dec/5 participation has a lot to do with personal connections. It is a time commitment, after all, and it's very easy to flake out on volunteer organizations because any given graduate student is "too busy". It's not so easy to do that if your best buddy is in the organization too and will have to pick up the slack. While we get a lot of great volunteers toward the beginning of the semester, once November/April hits it becomes very difficult to put on a TG (happy hour) and for the most part only people in the central "clique" sign up to help out-- and usually out of peer pressure. I also recognize that if I'm not friends with people I'm volunteering with, even if I like them as people, I'm going to get kind of bored.
This makes me think that the key to retaining Dec/5 volunteers is to integrate them in quickly though separate social activities. If they can become friends with existing committed folks, they're more likely to become committed themselves.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Brains, politics, and PhDs
According to this study, liberals more easily handle change than conservatives. I'm not on campus, but I'm not sure that CMU gets that journal anyway. I'd be interested to read the study, because I'd like to know if they controlled for education, or if they ran the same study varying educational levels while keeping political bent constant. I would assume that to get approved for publication they would have at least controlled for age.
My curiousity re: education is because awhile back I read something (sorry, forgot source) saying that people who had PhDs had less "mature" brains because they had to constantly learn new things, or something. Which would explain why it seems a lot of professors tend to retain childlike qualities. And how most of us go to grad school to avoid growing up.
My curiousity re: education is because awhile back I read something (sorry, forgot source) saying that people who had PhDs had less "mature" brains because they had to constantly learn new things, or something. Which would explain why it seems a lot of professors tend to retain childlike qualities. And how most of us go to grad school to avoid growing up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)