One ingredient to surviving [and "succeeding"] in science is having a few individuals write supportive letters of reference when you apply for jobs, tenure, and/or promotion. Previously, I posted some thoughts about Who should I get to write a letter of reference?
Avoid making last minute requests to people. This may lead to hastily written letters, no letter, or just "recycling" of old letters. It is worth thinking about who you may need or want to write a letter for you in the next year or so. Then maintain and/or cultivate that relationship. In particular, that means making sure they know what you have been up to scientifically for the last few years. It is idealistic to think that your former advisor/supervisor has been reading all your latest papers, particularly if (hopefully) you have moved into different areas. Hence, occasional update emails, visits, and chats at conferences are a good investment.
I suspect, that one unfortunate consequence of the rise of metrics is that letters are less influential than they used to be, except at the best institutions. Nevertheless, they still play a role.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From Leo Szilard to the Tasmanian wilderness
Richard Flanagan is an esteemed Australian writer. My son recently gave our family a copy of Flanagan's recent book, Question 7 . It is...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro...
-
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
No comments:
Post a Comment