Let the politics begin !

Today a colleague (lets call hir YY) of mine came to my office. This person is very senior and has had many successful grants and students.

I told hir that I have discussed some of my idea with another colleague (lets call hir XX). This is what YY said to me:

"you do not want to discuss your ideas. If you have some one senior come to you, just tell them that you are if they have an idea you will be happy to work with them. You will get your ideas and money stolen especially with XX".

There are few senairos that arose in my mind:

1) YY wants to work with me (this was mentioned in our conversation) and wants to keep me for hirself.
2) XX is as is described. There is some evidance to it since XX has not worked with any one in a substantial way
3) I cant think of the third. May you can :P

 So I have these questions from the blogosphere:

1) How often does your ideas get stolen in academia? Not scooped as in when you are in competition and want to out do each other. But stolen !
2) How often you had problems with a senior collegue for using funds i.e. you were junior but a PI and the senior was a co-PI. Do you happen to have problems such as the senior trying to use your money etc.
3) How do you know who to trust. There can be a lot of overlap between expertise but you do want some on who you could trust right. How do you decide who to discuss your ideas with?

I often heard in my pre-academia-existance that academia is very political. I am coming to taste it now. Hopefully it will be fun.

Too many things

Here are the random thoughts in my mind.

Recently I visited the country where I grew up. It was a rather long trip of 5 weeks and I got to spend a significant time with family and friends. Everything was nice and pleasurable; except for it didn't look real. It didn't felt like home. It was nostalgic sure but it wasn't home. I came back to the US and it felt nicer, familiar, home...

I don't know how to comprehend it because it felt nicer, familiar when I went back to the place I grew up in. It has been a decade since I left that place and things have changed. People have changed. Their thinking and living styles have changed. It reminds me of my childhood but it does not constitute a home any more.

On another front I am in the middle of a large move for me and my family. It is a cross country move and the first major move since our child. It is rather sooner than I had expected and wanted but I do not see any other choice. Things have to be packed, things have to be moved, apartments have to be cleaned and handed over, apartments have to be looked and decided up on in the new place, I have to make a short visit to the department, move has to be arranged for my car and the family. All of this has to be done within two weeks. Wife is a big help since she is taking care of all the scheduling along with a sick child.

I am taking up a position that I have dreamed about since the day I started doing science. It is a tenure track position with startup funds and my own lab-setup. I will have my own PhD students and my own equipment. I will be the director of my own lab and will be responsible for every one working in it. I will have to bring in money and teach as well. I will have to do service and learn the new ropes of tenure track position. I don't know if I am excited or scared.

Bad Talk

I spend a lot time thinking and practicing my talks, be it for a conference or an interview. I also give a significant thought to the outline of my talk, the presentation and ordering of the slides and other things (such as fonts, colors etc). I do this for two reason. One that I want to present my work in a good way that people can understand. The other reason is that it is respectful to be prepared for the people who came to listen to my talk, taking time out of their lives.

Recently, I happened to attend a talk which is opposite to what I have stated in the paragraph above. It was suppose to be a big event with over 1000 people attending (online and in person). This particular speaker was up in the schedule with a big shot (who gave an excellent talk by the way) from the field. However,...

The slides were messy, they had an awful dark color and the slides mostly had text only. Even the text was not properly arranged and/or justified. He didn't even knew the examples in the talk. It was obvious this particular person had made no effort to give a useful talk.

What do you do when you encounter such a talk? I can think of several possibilities:

1) Leave the room and stay out till this person is done
2) Stay in the room and pretend to listen while you are working on your laptop
3) Stay and listen, and then blast the speaker with various questions to make him know that you did a poor job
4) Stay and listen, and ask insightful questions

I opted for number 2. However, I did observe people practicing 1, 2, 4. Unfortunately, no one went for option 3 and I didn't had the energy to do it...I wish I had !

Declining an On-Campus Interview

Recently, I declined a request for an on-campus interview. Yes, I am aware that I am not suppose to apply at places where I am not going to go. But I applied anyway because of the fear that I might not get interviews this year (which does not seem to be the case).

The university was in a big city and had some interesting research going on in the department. However, the amount of teaching and research did not seem to be right for me i.e. teaching counted way more than research for tenure and promotion. This is what the head of the department told me over the phone/email and this is what I gauged from the faculty profiles. Hence, it would not have been a best fit for me and therefore, a waste of time, energy and resources for both parties.

I had double thoughts when declining the interview because I really liked the city (from what I have heard) and do not have an invitation for another on-campus interview, yet.

I still think it was the right thing to do. I want to conserve my energy for future interviews that could be a potential fit for me, for the department and for my family.

How long ?

How long does it take you to start conversation over the email using the recipients first name ?Is it after a single email, after two ?

I have observed that when starting a conversation with some one that I don't know and the first interaction is over the email; I start out in a formal way saying Dr. family name. But after a few email exchanges I find it difficult to keep conversing in a formal tone and I get to the point and start using first names.

I don't know if that is a good thing and how do people perceive it.

Meeting schedule

There is a certain situation in the lab that prompted me to think: How many meetings between a PI and a postdoc/student /staff is sufficient: daily, once a week, once a month or on a need basis.

I always had this need-to-meet schedule in the grad school and I liked it because: 1) It gave me more time to think and contemplate about the question that I may want to ask my advisor; and generally I came up with a solution of my own during this time. 2) It didn't waste my time with unnecessary meetings 3) I felt more of an academic with my own free will to get my work done.

I do not know what the optimal meeting frequency would be in my group would be (if I do land a tenure-track position some day, fingers crossed). But I find it distasteful to have to meet every day/week/month. The reason is that rigid schedule of meetings would not accomplish anything if the student does not have anything to talk about. Hence, waste of time for the student and more importantly, a waste of chunk of my time. Therefore, theoretically the student would see the advisor on a need-to basis and should suffice in my group.

However, I am not sure how this scheme would work for non-focused students. I am beginning to think what if having a rigid meeting schedule keep student on track? more focused?

I would love to hear any experiences regarding more/less/non-existant meeting schedule some of you may have in your grad school etc.