Repost: finding the alternatives within academia

This is a re-post of some career advice I wrote lo these many years ago for the Alternative Scientist blog, which is/was written by a group of bloggers for researchers considering careers other than traditional tenure-track research and/or teaching. The aim of the post in question was to help people get started on their new careers while still working in academia. I’ve directed a few people to it recently, and find that it’s still relevant; I’m also rather proud of the piece, and have decided that it would be nice to have it posted and archived over here alongside my other witterings!

——————–

The best time to prepare for your next career move is NOW.

But what if you don’t really know what you want to do after your degree / PhD / postdoc?

Well, NOW is also a good time to start figuring that out.

Identify the things you enjoy

The great thing about the academic experience is that it exposes you to many different tasks and experiences that are relevant to careers outside of the traditional tenure track. If you can identify the parts of your work that interest you the most (hint: these are probably the times when you’re actually happy to be working rather than reading blogs), then you’ve already made a huge first step towards identifying your ideal career.

I made my first step when I started to write my PhD thesis. I’d enjoyed my three years in the lab about as much as it’s possible to enjoy a PhD, but I struggled with some technical aspects of the work, especially long-term cell culture. The sorry state of my house plants is a testament to my lack of a green thumb, or whatever the cell culture equivalent is. When I started to write, I realised that my rate of progress was determined solely by the amount of time and effort I put in. What a contrast to those long Sundays in the lab, slaving away over a hot incubator, only to have my cells die before the end of the assay! I’d always enjoyed writing anyway, but this was my first realisation that I might enjoy writing about science more than actually doing it. This suspicion was confirmed during my postdoc – I was always happiest when writing papers, popping into the lab occasionally to run a gel and chat with friends. It took me a little longer to identify careers in science that were primarily based on writing, but I got there in the end.

So: what do you enjoy most about your current situation? Straight-up lab work? Maybe a research position in industry would suit you. TAing? Maybe you’d like to be a teacher, or to work in a public communications role such as in a museum or science centre. Do you find yourself more drawn to the opinion pieces and corporate merger information than the research articles in Science and Nature? Consider a career in science policy, intellectual property, or business development.

Hate everything about academia? Well, all is not lost. Any hobbies and volunteering you do in all that spare time you have (ha!) will also give you some ideas. Or maybe you have a friend with no scientific background, but with a job that sounds pretty cool. Might a biotech or big pharma company, a University or a museum or a professional association, need people to play a similar role within their organisation? Have a look at the careers section of their website and find out.

Now find a way to do them more often

If you enjoy a specific part of your current position, find a way to incorporate more of it into your remaining time in academia. This is a good idea for two reasons

  1. it gives you a better idea of whether you really do want a career that focuses on this one area
  2. it gives you experience that will make your CV stand out from all the others

You want to convince future interviewers that you’re looking for a career, not a job; being proactive, not reactive; working to a long-term plan, not applying to any old scientific job that crops up in your local area. If you can point to areas of your CV that show a long-standing commitment to your chosen field (do this in the cover letter and – repeatedly – at interview), you will stand out from the pile of CVs stacked up in human resources.

My postdoc supervisor knew that I eventually wanted a job in scientific communication, and she was happy to help me gain more experience. I volunteered to edit and proofread manuscripts and studentship / fellowship applications written by other lab members. I wrote parts of her grant applications and progress reports.

But don’t just rely on your boss; look for other opportunities too. My department had a newsletter, run by some of the grad students, so I wrote articles whenever I had time. I volunteered for Let’s Talk Science, an outreach programme that took us into high schools to, well, talk about science.

Writing and communication are relatively easy examples, because they’re such a large part of academic science anyway. But you should be able to find ways to gain more experience regardless of your chosen future field. Just volunteer for anything even vaguely related – even if you end up spending a lot of time proofing legal documents from your technology transfer department, sitting in committee meetings, volunteering for ethics review boards or whatever, you can find a way to get the right experience and flesh out your CV. (That’s the other great thing about the academic experience; always more tasks than volunteers).

Again, you don’t have to stick to academia – maybe a local charity would appreciate some help with their own newsletter or website. Maybe you have a friend who could use a fresh pair of eyes on her big sales report. The skewed tasks:volunteers ratio is not just an academic phenomenon…

Repeat ad infinitum

Hopefully the advice above will help you to make that first step into your new career. But don’t stop now! Your first non-academic position is unlikely to be the amazing dream job that you will do for the rest of your life, but it will expose you to another, broader, range of experiences. For example, as well as the grant writing that is my day-to-day focus, my new job also gets me involved in public relations, website design and intellectual property issues. I haven’t quite figured out which parts I enjoy the most (definitely not intellectual property!), but you can bet that as soon as I do, I’ll start volunteering for more of it.

Posted in career, communication, personal, science | 17 Comments

Are left-wingers more creative? Are multi-party systems superior to two-party systems? Do provocative titles attract more readers and comments?

Let’s see: a Canadian federal election, an electoral reform referendum in the UK, a new opposition leader and talk of an early provincial election in British Columbia, and lots of coverage of the likely US Republican party presidential candidates, all together, simultaneously, and at the same time?

No wonder politics has been on my mind a lot lately.

It’s not just me, either – politics has been dominating my real life and online conversations to a much greater degree than usual (except on Canucks game days, of course). A couple of interesting themes have developed…

1) There’s been a lot of very creative fun, satire, and silliness around during the Canadian federal election campaign. Spoof Twitter accounts, viral videos, fun websites, and other good things. The thing is… all of it that I’ve seen has come from the left. (Beth agrees! We discussed it during the intermission of Friday’s Canucks game!) Is there right-wing creativity and silliness out there that I’m not seeing because I’ve got my left-wing blinkers on? It’s possible, but I have enough right-leaning friends in real-life, plus on Facebook and Twitter (on Twitter I go out of my way to follow some intelligent right-wingers), that you’d think at least one of them would have posted a link. Is the left-wing contingent just naturally enriched for creative, fun, and silly people? Or is it a function of opposition versus governing parties, or of the age and other demographics of the left versus the right?

2) Discussing federal versus BC politics at the same time has been an interesting experience, and has led to the following observation:

Two-party system (e.g. BC, USA) ———-> Black-and-white thinking, “I’m right and you’re wrong” arguments

Multi-party system (e.g. Canada, UK) —–> Shades of grey, more nuanced debates

I’m just not sure the arrows are pointing in the right direction…

Thoughts? Observations? Arguments? Debates?

Anything but apathy, please. Apathy drives me NUTS!

Posted in blog buddies, Canada, current affairs, politics, silliness, UK | 48 Comments

Weekend fun: my next tweet

Many, many thanks to Kimli for alerting me to “That Can Be My Next Tweet!“, a tool that creates mash-ups of bits and pieces of your most recent tweets to create much hilarity.

My twitter stream is kinda schizophrenic at the best of times, but what with the ongoing NHL playoffs and Canadian election campaign adding to my usual output relating to science, politics, current affairs, cycling, and life in general, some really funny stuff came out. Here are some highlights:

  • Two very tight 3-way race in Nature! I haven’t jumped yet! : REVOLUTION!!!111!!
  • I don’t know if you’re a former LPC wife-bot? I’m accustomed to ride year-round, I’d consider a monarchy!
  • O Canada! No : REVOLUTION!!!111!! Mr E Man I spoke French well you doing it wrong.
  • Does anyone who will NOT repeating debate will drive u crazy. Having a Canucks game instead
  • I was GAME DAY!!! I WILL NOT vote for the dog Hubby is amplified using standard XMRV primers:
  • Should P-cadherin come dressed as the future? Hello, it’s going well! Man I get a good quality internet
  • Why yes, but in Gibsons??!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Mr. Harper, please don’t fear community labs : calm down
  • Iggy: I already have been normal-to-slightly-asocial in MONTHS, the grown-up version of a year or try to!
  • Iggy hit Harper hard on roads w good sites? yes, but both have to register their minds until he’s had?
  • Man I became a control. BURN! Jack Layton is happily ranting on 4 hours to boost insect habitats: BBC!
  • I want to follow the old testament: God is good. For my iPhone app – CBC News – but both have ducks!
  • This is the old testament: God is your friend, aren’t they?! I WILL NOT vote for Force and Canada.
  • O Canada! I’ll be a man who knocks on the BBC, saw it on 4 subsequent tax returns from Anaheim.
  • Looking for anyone who don’t fear, community labs : I hope you’re afraid of damage. Great that sucks!
  • No hockey pool, you’re a non-citizen, but ignored all the tea’s perfectly brewed.
  • Interesting stuff! Oocyte-Specific Differences in human history. I already have ducks!

 

You should try it! It’s fun. Half of it’s just gibberish,

  • Last time for his friends that was definitely tell that sentence does not very sensible.

but you can get a quick and easy blog post out of it

  • Great idea! Have fun. I’m not compute. You *always* need for best posts!
Posted in Canada, communication, current affairs, cycling, English language, politics, science, silliness, technology | 35 Comments

Mis-shapes, mistakes, misfits

I went to Whistler last weekend and it was awesome.

More on that later, but today I wanted to share some photos of a remarkable mural we saw in an underpass as we walked back to the car from the Merlins pub at the Blackcomb base. I was quite blown away by it, and yelled at everyone that they had to wait for me so I could take some photos for my blog. They weren’t too happy about this, as we were rushing to pick up food and beer before watching the last Canucks game of the regular season, so some of the shots are a little rushed. But, as you’ll see, that doesn’t detract too much from the glory of the mural…

This marine life scene was the first thing that caught my eye. Opinion is divided as to which of the three grey creatures are supposed to be whales, and which (if any) are supposed to be sharks. I think the top one's a shark. Actually, the bottom one might be a dolphin.

Who lives in a (what IS that thing?) under the sea? SIX LEGGED SQUISHED CRAB!

Land animals were represented too - like these wolves, for instance...

...weird and wacky wolves! Does anyone know a good veterinary chiropracter?

Mr E Man thought I was being far too gleefully mean. "It was probably done by some elementary school kids or something", he said. But no. (I Googled the names).

This mural made my day. It was so bright and cheerful and hilarious. If you go to Whistler, forget the traditional activities of skiing, boarding, bobsledding, bungee jumping, zip trekking, hiking, drinking and hot tubbing – you need to visit this mural.

Posted in art, Canada, nature, photos | 6 Comments

Hockey pool: final results!

Let’s start with an overview of the whole season’s results, NOT INCLUDING the final week’s:

Weeks 1 - 27

Lavaland led the pool from week 13 onwards, but could she fend off a strong challenge from Ricardipus? And did anything interesting happen in the rest of the rankings in this final week?

Drumroll, please:

Final update!

And the answers were yes and no, respectively!

Many congratulations to Lavaland for winning the 2010-2011 pool! (And also to ScientistMother for holding on to 4th spot – I thought I might just swing it, but it was not to be!) And, of course, thanks to everyone who played – this was really fun!

Lavaland has set up a playoffs pool, and I’ll send you all the password by email after I post this update. Unfortunately I won’t be able to host as I’ll be away for three weeks right in the middle of the playoffs, but I can contribute an update or two before I go!

Of course, if the Canucks go out to Chicago for the third year running, I will automatically lose all interest in the rest of the playoffs, and will sulk in a corner until the rugby world cup starts in September. I’ve decided that the fact that we’re playing them in the first round is a sign that either a) it’s OUR TIME, and the road to the cup begins with revenge over Chicago; or b) God does exist, and he’s a Blackhawks fan.

GO CANUCKS GO!

Posted in hockey pool, sport | 16 Comments

Next time you’re ranting about your latest grant review…

…spare a thought for your colleagues in Bulgaria.

I had to read the fifth paragraph of this Nature News piece two or three times to make sure I’d fully understood the depth of the (alleged) problems at the Bulgarian National Science Fund:

The report claims that many of the 230 reviewers who were chosen to assess the proposals had no science degrees or academic position. “One professor of English reviewed a paper in biochemistry,” says Horozov. Each of the reviewers was allowed to select which grant proposals he or she would review from the whole list, a practice that is unheard of in funding agencies. As the reviewers were paid for each review they produced, Horozov believes that this system may have been abused by some reviewers to boost their fees. “Several referees, even those without any form of scientific qualification, managed to comment on 100–200 applications within just two months.”

Wow.

Just… WOW.

There are also accusations of ignored reviews, manipulated scores, and other discrepancies. If true, this system is horrifically unfair to researchers already working in very difficult conditions.

I think I’m going to print the article out and keep it close by for the next round of reviews.

Posted in bad people, current affairs, grant wrangling, science | 13 Comments

Paging Doctor Clueless!

A story from way back in the mists of time…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A good friend of mine had an absolutely terrible time during her PhD, worse than anyone I know: her two co-supervisors had a fight and stopped talking to each other about a year in, and that was actually the least of her worries. But she struggled through all obstacles, focused on her very cool project, and produced a draft thesis that she proudly presented to both supervisors.

Predictably, the two PIs spent most of their time and energy correcting each others’ corrections to the draft. However, the more clueless PI also left some rather unnecessarily mean and spiteful comments scattered throughout the document. This PI was in over their head in an unfamiliar field, wasn’t exactly making much of an effort to catch up on the historical or current literature, and made several edits that were just plain wrong. However, one in particular stood out.

The sentence in question read something like this (I forget the details):

“Some evidence had already been found to support a correlation between X and Y [Smith et al., 1977; Smith and Jones, 1978], but the advent of new technique Z provided definitive evidence for this relationship [Page, 1984].”

The latter paper was apparently absolutely pivotal to this sub-field, and essential to the interpretation of my friend’s work, which the clueless PI had been co-supervising for just over three years. However, the PI saw fit to mark this passage, in angry red pen, with “the attention to detail in this thesis is atrocious. SEE ME”.

When my friend took the thesis into the PI’s office, she was told “your cross-referencing is completely unacceptable. There is no page 1,984 in this document”.

The moral of this story is:

  1. there are PIs out there who not only don’t know the seminal literature in their own fields, but who are incapable of recognising a standard citation format.
  2. it’s possible to survive such a lab and get your PhD, and even to laugh about it (many years) later. We’ve actually discussed making the whole saga into a Hollywood blockbuster, with the climax featuring my friend standing on a windy hill top in a bloodied lab coat shouting “you can take my life, but you can never take my THESIS!”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right, back to double checking the intra- and inter-document cross-referencing in the four progress reports that triggered this memory. They should be ready to send out for feedback by the end of the day… thankfully, my colleagues are sensible people who can be relied upon to provide constructive and sensible edits!

(I will, of course, blog any exceptions).

Posted in career, communication, English language, idiocy, science | 11 Comments

Hockey pool: penultimate update!

Just one week to go until we crown a winner, and things are looking pretty tight at the top!

Ricardipus made up some ground on first-placed Lavaland, and if I were them I’d be choosing this week’s players veeeeeery carefully indeed… either of them could win this! A series of strong weeks finally paid off for ScientistMother as she passed me to take fourth place, but I have to say that Bob looks pretty secure in third. There’s clear space between each pair of the remaining four players, but anything can happen as teams dig deep to try and make the play-offs, and we could still see some shake-ups over the next few days!

Of course, the Monday morning standings don’t tell the whole story – the scores are updated daily, and there’s typically lots of jostling for position:

Daily break-down of this week's points. I wish I'd thought to make this graph in a week when I actually did well...

The Canucks clinched the Presidents’ Trophy on Thursday, with four games to spare and before any other team in the West had even clinched a play-off spot. Amid the celebrations and jubilation, I announced that I would have an all-Canucks team for the final week of the pool. However, I was forced to reconsider when we lost 4-1 in an atrocious game against the Oilers on Saturday. I probably shouldn’t put all my trust in players whose only goal for the week is not to get injured, but I’ll probably keep Danny Sedin, who’s still leading the individual scoring rankings. Actually I might add Hank, too – a Sedin one-two would be pretty sweet!

I hope you all enjoy the last week of the regular season!

Posted in hockey pool | 16 Comments

Cat on a hot tin MacBook

Things are ramping up to crazy levels again, at work and elsewhere. Deadlines, side-projects, taxes (I actually managed to file weeks before the actual Canada Revenue deadline, for once!), unconference organisation, blogging, and trying to keep up with the twists and turns of the Canadian election campaign – no wonder I feel like I never have any time to play my violin!

The extra load means bringing work home more often than usual.

Two Macs are better than one! I use one for playing music and other frivolities, and the other for work

I’m actually really productive when working from home. I can play music through proper speakers rather than through headphones, make a pot of coffee instead of just a cup, and escape from the background noise and interruptions that run rampant at the office.

Oh, and I get to hang out with my cat!

She likes it when I work from home. She’s a very social beast. And she is determined not to meet the same fate as my poor neglected violin:

If violins could do this, they might get more attention!

And when there’s no cat on my lap or my laptop, you can be sure there’s one sitting on whatever pieces of paper I’m trying to consult!

The one time I’ve needed to consult it for YEARS... and there’s a cat on it!

Right – just a few more weeks to fit everything into before my triumphant return to Toronto. Better start saving up – every Penny counts!

.l;;;…;llkmmk.,ikn,,j.;l’nnn..,;jn’kjilojj….kkjllpjnjbokkkkkkkhu0ob9

Oops, sorry – cat-like typing has been detected AGAIN.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Priorities

This is a fantastic way to kick off a general election:

Checking the CBC website for the latest campaign news this morning, I noticed that sport (and hockey in particular) is apparently less important than potential nuclear meltdowns, but much more important than the election. In fact, the website has separate sections for hockey and for sport…

…and the top stories in the sport section are also about hockey.

What a great country.

Posted in bad people, Canada, current affairs, silliness, sport, videos | 10 Comments