Teaching Philosophy Statements

One of the components of an application for a PUI or MCU position is the Statement of Teaching Philosophy. As with all components of the application it is used to look for candidates that fit or don't fit into the philosophy of the search committee members and the department as a whole.

In some cases this statement is a formality which might get little attention. Departments that value bench research above all will want to see the candidate show that they respect their teaching responsibility, but they don't want candidates who intend to pour their energy into teaching at the expense of "scholarly activity". PUIs and MCUs generally don't fall into this category.

I personally see research as a valuable component of a learning by doing philosophy that is sometimes referred to as a polytechnic training concept. Since I greatly value this, my philosophy statement includes some discussion of this concept and how I bring it into my classes and laboratory experiences. More research active PUIs and MCUs appear to have appreciated this attention in the teaching philosophy statement.

Because training and developing students is generally a key component in the mission of the PUI and MCU program evidence of what the candidate values in their teaching should be apparent in the Teaching Philosophy statement. Is the candidate enamored of technology, a devotee of assessment, passionate about integrated or discovery laboratories, etc. In some cases the department will not share the candidates interests. The committee must then determine if the candidate will represent "new blood" or "radical ideas".

As I have noted in earlier posts candidates should not shotgun out applications, but should target applications to school where they believe they can make a contribution. This demands that the candidate risk honestly stating a philosophy that may not fit the institution. Then again, it may also cause some institutions to look at the statement and find an excellent fit. Ultimately, there has to be a fit between the institution and candidate. The teaching philosophy statement is one of the tools to identify the fit.

T.S. Hall

Allopath or Ostheopath

At one time I served on the Health Professions Committee. One of our jobs was to interview all the would be health professionals and write a University Letter of Recommendation. After reviewing the list of medical schools a student planned to apply to one of the questions we commonly asked was, "Since you have applied to both types, what is the difference between allopathic and osteopathic medicine?" Our experience was that if you don't know the difference and why you wanted to be at an osteopathic school you would not be accepted following the interview.

As earnest young scientists begin to prepare for the Fall hiring season I have already suggested they prepare research plans. Today I ask them, "What is the difference between the Research University, Masters Comprehensive University, Primarily Undergraduate Research Active College or University, Primarily Undergraduate Non-research Active College or University, or Community College?" In reality you are unlikely to be covering all those bases. (If you are, Stop! You need to begin by figuring out what you want to be before you shotgun out dozens of applications that will be ignored because they don't serve any specific institution you are applying to.)

I know you need a job as your postdoc mentor does not have money to keep you on forever and there are new young minds that need shaping in that hood you occupy. But, please don't waste your time applying to East Podunk Cosmetology College with your stem cell research plan attached because they need some who understands hair dye chemistry and you still have hair.

More realistically, if you dream of working in the lab training your students yourself, and RO1 is probably not for you. If you don't really care if you do the lab work and you know you will have the Nobel by the time you are 40, a MCU or PUI is not for you. Sure if you pull in a couple of million in grants and publish five papers in Science or Nature Chemistry in your first three years the RO1's will realize what they missed and call you up, but the reality of the resources and mission of MCU and PUI institutions generally will not allow you to achieve such success. So, even if you get the job, you will be unhappy and so will your colleagues.

Today, put your research plan aside for a moment and look into the real working conditions at the type of schools that are out there. Imagine that you will be there for the rest of your days. Will you be happy? Will your colleagues? Getting an offer is all about if you fit the institution, accepting it is all about if it fits you. Don't waste your time applying if the fit won't work for you.

Make a few notes on why the types of institutions that fit do fit. They will come in handy in your philosophy statements which I will cover later.

T.S. Hall

Transformative PUI Research

I promised sometime ago to come back to the topic of Transformative Research at PUI institutions.  Please keep in mind that I am focused on synthetic organic chemistry for the most part, so folks from other areas of the science will have differing perspectives.

In developing a PUI research program it is critically important to 1) keep in mind who you are working with, 2) your equipment and instrumentation resources, and 3) your own sanity.  And if you want funding make it transformative.

We synthetic folks tend to get very focused on making specific molecules and can forget about the bigger picture of the science we create.  If you are not careful the only science you move forward is how to make some obscure molecule in a new way.  This can be of value to the other person in the world who wants that molecule, but may not be fundable since there is only one other person in the world who will benefit from your work.  If have seen many early career faculty get funded only to then fall into the trap of only making molecules.   Once the New Faculty bloom is off the rose they find the molecule maker has very limited funding opportunities.

In my opinion, to be transformative a project must make the reader of the grant or paper think that the results in some way change their perspective on the broader field.  The extent to which it changes the perspective will/should dictate the reviewers evaluation of the work.  Every time I think about my own projects I catch myself asking, where the hook is.  I can come up with very cleaver ways to make molecules, but if they don't have a element that helps us understand organic molecules better to give us a new general tool for the toolbox I can't get funded.

As a synthetic organic person I don't think we can find federal funding to just to make molecules.  There may be some speciality pharma or industrial application that might make your targeted synthesis fundable, but those sources have been hard for me to find and fall outside our "transformative" discussion.  The synthetic project must break new ground or at least tell us something about the ground that has previously been covered that enables us to rethink the earlier ideas about the chemistry.

You have to have an idea, and as organic chemistry has become a mature science over the last fifty years, the transformative ideas get harder to find and exploit.  I have come to believe that you need to develop a bigger picture question that you will develop expertise over a lifetime rather than going after the method or molecule of the day.  If your interest is, for instance alpha-hetero anions, you can explore the fundamental nature of the beast, methods to make them and their application in synthesis.  Having a range of things to do will allow you to tailor the projects to the students you have and allow you to establish your own reputation within the field.  

One of the challenges for the PUI researcher is not just developing a transformative idea, but one you can move forward at a reasonable pace.  Undergraduates will typically spend less than ten hours per week doing anything that is actually useful.  (Some would say, far less than ten hours.)  So your project plans must take their time and skill into account.  In their early days of their development students can generate data.  Research programs that need data to study a mechanism or looks at the influence of a variable on yield or selectivity are manageable.  Plus getting numbers and making a table or graph helps the student gain confidence.  If the trends seen by these students can inform the synthetic work and add to the general understanding of the topic under study there can be pubs and presentations which will support the program at grant time.

PUI's have limited resources and in tough economies start-up packages tend to shrink.  In looking at schools check out the instrument holdings and when you interview find out about the upkeep and condition of the instruments you will need.  I have had to upkeep just about every instrument I have ever used in the lab, and have see the guts of NMRs, GC, GC-MS, HPLC, Stirrers, Hotplates, etc.  Instrument upkeep can become the black hole that sucks up all your lab time.   

Don't despair if resources are limited.  I have made many trips to RO1 institutions to use libraries and instruments.  What your school lacks a neighbor might have.  If you develop a collaboration with an RO1 partner you might be able to bypass much of the cost of using instruments on that campus.

In protecting your sanity I will remind you that teaching and service will absorb much of your time.  You will not have as much lab time as you think.  At the same time without you in the lab your students will wander around pouring expensive reagents into waste bottles and breaking glassware for amusement (maybe not, but it seems that way).  You need to develop project that don't require your expertise.

Lastly, a word for those preparing to enter the job search in the Fall.  Develop your idea now!  Start thinking about funding sources.  Start writing your research plans now.  August will be here before you know it.

T. S. Hall

Academic Job Fall 2010

I have been on a number of faculty search committees and have chaired a couple, so it has been interesting to talk to the graduate students and post-docs here at my sabbatical location.  Several of my lab colleagues have expressed an interest in finding an academic position for Fall 2010, so I thought I would make a few comments on preparing for a academic life from the perspective of the research active but non-research university.  I imagine this will be a reoccurring topic over the next few months.

My tendency is to think long-term.  My advice to students at any stage of their career is to think about where you want to be in future and start doing the things that people who are successful in that career do.  (With the exception of adopting the more annoying personality traits.)  With this in mind, you applicants for 2010 jobs should start working on those things that will ensure your success as a junior faculty member.  One of those things is an independent and externally funded research program that is appropriate to the resources and student body of the institution you are applying to.

By "independent" I mean a project that is not a rehash or slight modification of your prior work in your PhD or Postdoc.  I am not suggesting that there can not be some connection, but if the topics are too close there will be concerns that you don't have your own ideas, and that you will end up competing with your established former mentors, which rarely ends well for the junior person.  

Collaborations are a good thing, and in PUI institutions can facilitate your program's development and help get early funding support.  You must, however, make sure that your contributions in any collaboration stand out as contributions you were uniquely qualified to make.  When you get to the tenure review you don't want someone to suggest that your collaborator is carrying you.  I have known people who were denied tenure because the committee was not convinced that the candidate's contributions to the papers published showed that there was a viable independent research program.  When you engage in collaborations try to also produce some publications on your own to avoid this pitfall.

How do we know if your work has potential for external funding?   You need to have an identifiable bigger picture issue you are addressing in your research.  As students and postdocs it can become easy to focus on making that next compound and lose sight of the larger scientific issues.  I am the first to admit that I have fallen into this trap where I focused on making molecules rather than on a bigger picture of how these synthesis tell is anything useful about the larger science.  This does not preclude you from publishing your work, but it will make it more difficult to find funding.  There may be some utility in another synthesis of Prelog-Djerassi lactone or Oseltamivir, but unless you have a good scientific hook funding will be difficult to find.

So, to use NSF's term make your research "transformative".  It does not have to shake the world, but it must contribute to the field in a way that catches the interest of reviewers.  Again this is not a trivial task when you are working at a PUI, which I will get into in the next post on the Starting an Academic Career theme.