Careers

Navigating the Interview: How to Make It Work for You
Career Symposium at Experimental Biology 2006

Organizers: Nansie A. McHugh, Huntingdon Life Sciences; William R. Galey, Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Soma Laboratory Makes Racing History

Interviewing in Industry versus Academia

Richard E. Klabunde
Ohio Univ. College of Osteopathic Med.

After several years of graduate school and postdoctoral training, you and your advisor feel that you are ready to begin searching for your first job. Although most, if not all, of your research experience has been in an academic environment, you have decided that you would like to consider employment opportunities in industry as well as at academic institutions. You have observed the interview process in academic institutions and feel like you have a general idea of the interview process for a junior faculty (assistant professor) position. But what about interviewing in industry? How does the interview process differ between academia and industry?

I would like to provide you with an overview of how the different cultures of academia and industry influence the interview process. My comments are based on my own personal experiences as a tenured faculty member at two different medical schools and as a senior research scientist at a large pharmaceutical company. I will first describe the differences in culture between academia and industry, and then summarize how these differences should influence how you present yourself during the job interview.

The first question I want to address is: what are the similarities and differences between the cultures of academia and industry?

Academic Culture. The traditional, tenure-track academic position has three components to its job description: teaching, research, and service. The relative importance of these three components differs considerably among institutions depending on the institution’s focus. At institutions having a strong research culture, such as major universities and their professional schools, (e.g., medicine, veterinarian), research may comprise 50-90% of the weight among the three areas. In contrast, the teaching and service components may comprise the largest share of the job description in small institutions that focus on teaching, particularly undergraduate teaching. Therefore, academic institutions differ considerably in the teaching, research, and service requirements, and these differences are very important to understand before interviewing.

Most advertised tenure-track junior faculty positions at academic institutions, whether research or teaching in emphasis, are for new faculty who can fill one or more specific teaching needs. Some institutions may advertise for a non-teaching, research faculty position; however, these positions generally do not lead to tenure. Teaching institutions are often looking for faculty who can teach multiple areas within their discipline, and sometimes outside of their primary discipline, and, therefore, are seeking individuals who have already demonstrated some level of experience and excellence in teaching. Research institutions, in contrast, are often seeking someone with specific research and teaching expertise that can provide graduate and professional lectures on specific topics. Because of the narrow scope of the teaching responsibilities at research institutions, the teaching load is relatively light compared to teaching institutions that have broader teaching requirements.

The research culture also differs among academic institutions. Research institutions are comprised of independent investigators who have established their own research programs. Although academic investigators need to be independent to successfully compete for external funding, researchers also need to collaborate with other investigators either from within or outside of their institution. External funding is expected and, in many institutions, is required for future tenure. In academic institutions, research is self-defined, meaning that the investigator decides what research to pursue. The academic investigator generally determines his or her research goals and deadlines for writing grants and manuscripts. The goal of research, particularly in research institutions, is to publish research in peer-reviewed journals and to obtain external funding. Presentation of research at scientific conferences or as seminars at other academic institutions is expected. Research in teaching institutions has many of these same considerations; however, the expectations for publications and external funding may be less because of greater teaching and service workloads. Furthermore, research at some teaching institutions, particularly four-year liberal arts colleges and universities, often serves to complement the teaching and training of undergraduate students.

Service is an important function at academic institutions; however, like research and teaching, service expectations can vary considerably among institutions. Service includes participating on various faculty and institutional committees, student advising, and, in some cases, public service.

Industry Culture. Most biomedical scientists with terminal degrees who are considering jobs in industry are looking for research positions. Unlike academic positions that have teaching and service components along with research, research scientists in industry function almost exclusively as scientists, especially in entry level positions. Other job components such as participating in research group meetings and supervising laboratory personnel are closely coupled with the scientist’s research activities. Written and oral communication skills are highly valued in industry and scientists have many opportunities to develop and express these skills. Occasionally a scientist may serve on a specific task force or committee, but this more commonly involves senior level scientists.

Industry wants to hire the best scientists who have demonstrated excellence through their publications. But industry also likes for these scientists to be broadly trained and to possess an arsenal of techniques that can be applied to different research problems. For example, a pharmacologist at a pharmaceutical company may be involved with receptor binding studies, intracellular messengers and signal transduction pathways, as well as with in vitro and in vivo testing of new drugs. To do all of this well, the scientist needs to be broadly trained. The nature of research in industry requires that a scientist be able to adapt laboratory techniques and analytical skills to different research projects.

Research is highly multidisciplinary and interdependent. Projects are made up of teams of scientists. For example, a physiologist working at a pharmaceutical or medical device company may work closely with pharmacologists, biochemists, chemists, molecular biologists, bioengineers, etc. to develop new drugs or medical products. Scientists do not run their own research program, but instead work on projects that are approved and funded by the company, and led by a project leader who is generally a senior scientist. Corporate management sets goals; therefore, projects are expected to move forward and deadlines met.

The company provides the research support, which can be very substantial compared to academic settings; however, the company can also suddenly cut off project funding as corporate goals and priorities change. Scientists are encouraged to be creative and to propose new research projects that can result in new products. Remember, the goal of the company is to produce new products that will generate revenue. This goal produces a sense of urgency and competition that helps to further drive the research. Most research is proprietary in nature and therefore publications and outside presentations have to be approved by the company.

The second question that I want to address is: considering the differences in culture between academia and industry, what should you emphasize during the job interview?
In academia and industry, the interview seminar is very important because it shows to a wide audience your talents as a scientist, as well as your ability to clearly communicate your ideas to others. Many of those listening to your interview seminar will likely have an opportunity to express their opinion regarding your suitability for the position that they are eager to see filled, so you need to impress them!
If you are interviewing at a research academic institution, it is especially important to demonstrate during the interview that you are capable of developing your own independent research program and that you have cut the cords to your doctoral and postdoctoral advisors. You need to express a clear vision for future research and have a plan for obtaining external funding of your research. Take an interest in the interviewers–study their backgrounds and research interests prior to the interview–and discuss possible research collaborations. If the research expectations are high for tenure, make sure that you will have protected time for research and adequate start-up funds to ensure that your research program can be quickly established. Once you are hired, the tenure clock begins ticking! If the interview is with a teaching institution, clearly communicate your qualifications and teaching strengths so that the interviewers are convinced that you can provide the excellence in teaching that they are seeking. Seminar presentations at teaching institutions are often evaluated more on the delivery than on the scientific content. Some teaching institutions may also require that a specific lecture be given in addition to the research seminar to provide greater insight into a candidate’s teaching ability.

If you interview for a research position in industry, it is very important to present yourself in a professional manner that fits their culture. Many corporations are still very formal compared to academic institutions, so your appearance and mannerisms may be scrutinized. Clearly demonstrate during the interview that you are a team player and that you welcome the opportunity to work closely with scientists from different disciplines. Show that you are flexible as a scientist by stressing your breadth of training and experience as well as your special scientific expertise. Describe techniques and analytical skills that will assist the company in achieving its research goals and, therefore, its corporate goals. Finally, make sure that you convey a sense of urgency and desire to meet goals and expectations that will be imposed on you.

In summary, as you think about interviewing for positions in academia and/or industry, remember to understand beforehand the differences in culture, and then present yourself during the interview in a way that is consistent with the expectations of the culture.


Interviewing for the Pharmaceutical Industry:
What Does it Involve and How to Succeed?

David P. Brooks
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals

The pharmaceutical industry provides an excellent opportunity for pursuing a scientific career and a successful interview is an important step in the process. In this brief synopsis of a talk delivered at the EB 2006 Symposium on “Navigating the Interview: How to Make it Work for You,” sponsored by the Careers Committee, I will provide information on the drug discovery and development process, the attributes that the pharmaceutical industry is looking for, how to find open positions, the interview process and finally, some of the differences between working in industry and working in academia.

The drug discovery process involves identifying the genes and proteins involved in disease, isolating novel proteins and using them to configure assays with which to screen a chemically diverse bank of compounds, optimizing screening “hits” for testing in in vitro assays, animal models and eventually patients. Scientists involved in these processes include molecular biologists, geneticists, biochemists, medicinal and analytical chemists, physiologists, pharmacologists, toxicologists and clinicians.
The drug development process involves chemical development, evaluation of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, safety studies, pharmaceutical technologies, corporate intellectual property, commercial evaluation, pharmaceutical technology and, of course, clinical pharmacology and clinical development. Throughout the drug discovery and development processes, project managers and leaders coordinate the various functions.

The attributes a physiologist needs to demonstrate to make them a strong candidate for a position in the pharmaceutical industry are not dissimilar to those required for jobs in academia. They include a basic knowledge of molecular processes, an understanding of systems biology and demonstration that one can conduct quality research. Thus, pharmaceutical companies are looking for innovative individuals who are scientifically competent as demonstrated by a record of peer–reviewed publications, demonstrated ability to champion ideas and have knowledge of therapeutics. In addition, there needs to be evidence that the candidate can function independently, calculate risk, be emotionally equipped to deal with difficult situations and embrace the highest standards of scientific integrity.
Before getting an interview in the pharmaceutical industry one must obviously find the open positions. This can be done in a number of ways. One way is through networking, i.e. knowing or getting introductions via mentors to people already in the industry. The second and easier way of finding open positions is to go to the companies’ websites where usually all open positions are posted. Indeed, most companies use their websites as a primary means of obtaining applications. To find a particular company’s website one can use the finance sites on the internet to profile a particular company and identify their website. Applications can usually be made on line and this obviously involves submission of curriculum vitae which should be prepared carefully. CVs should be relatively simple, documenting a record of accomplishment with not too much verbiage. Publications should be separated into full publications and abstracts. A clear record of training, postdoctoral fellowships (usually a requirement) and positions with dates should be listed. If grants, honors, and prizes have been awarded, these should be listed. Demonstration of the ability to publish is important. Publishing forces scientists to defend their ideas beyond their immediate laboratories. It develops emotional strength, builds self confidence and improves communication skills. Publishing establishes scientific credibility, can provide security, and develops the skills required to be a champion of ideas.

The interview process is usually very similar between different pharmaceutical companies. The goal for the company is to evaluate whether the candidate has the attributes described above. The goal of the candidate should be two-fold; first, to demonstrate that they are excellent scientists who can deliver what is required to be successful in industry. Second, the interview is an opportunity to determine if the Pharmaceutical Industry and the particular company that is being visited, will provide the appropriate opportunity to conduct high quality research of interest and the opportunity to progress within the organization. Sometimes, there is a dinner on the evening prior to the formal interview. In a typical interview, one usually meets with the hiring supervisor first and then gives a seminar. Subsequently, one usually meets with individuals or small groups of scientists. Either at the beginning or the end of the day, the individual will meet with a representative from the human resources department who will explain the benefits, etc. As in the academic interview, the most important part of the day is the seminar. It is the chance for the applicant to present his or her work in a clear and understandable manner, demonstrate an ability to champion ideas, show enthusiasm for the research and an ability to hear the questions being asked and to answer them in a clear and brief manner.

Discussion during the day will involve trying to find evidence that the applicant can come up with good ideas, conduct the appropriate studies and, most important, bring efforts to closure, as demonstrated by a successful publication. Individuals must show evidence of scientific acumen, excellent communication skills and how they will “add value” to the organization. When interviewing for a research position in industry, it is most important to understand that the hiring manager is only interested in hiring a scientist and not interested in filling positions with individuals who, after two years, want to move on to other parts of the organization. You will be judged based upon your scientific accomplishments and your potential to assume greater scientific responsibilities in the future. However, all good interviews do not only examine competence and credibility, but also determine suitability for a long term professional relationship.

Finally, working in industry is in many ways similar to academia. One is expected to conduct outstanding science, make regular presentations, champion ideas and, depending on the individual company, publish in peer-reviewed journals. There are, however, two main differences between working in industry and academia. One involves “having a boss”; in academia, for the most part, one is running one’s own laboratory. With the exception of answering to the chairman of the department when it comes to teaching responsibilities, one is essentially one’s own manager. In industry, one is accountable to the immediate supervisor, their managers and often various program teams. One is expected to report monthly on progress that is being made and meet deadlines; especially when it involves preparation of regulatory documents. Implicit in this is the ability to function as part of team, sometimes leading and sometimes supporting. A second important difference is that while in academia one is often able to work in the same area over a number of years; individuals in industry must be flexible and be prepared to change research directions as projects progress and new efforts are initiated.

In summary, working for the pharmaceutical industry provides an excellent opportunity for young scientists to conduct research of the highest quality and to establish national and international reputations. Appropriate preparation for an interview is important and this should involve careful preparation of the CV, diligence in putting together a tight and compelling seminar, and understanding what is required to work in industry.


That First Faculty Position Interview:
Preparation and Etiquette

Donna H. Korzick
Penn State Univ.

Interviewing for your first academic, tenure-track faculty position is without question a career milestone. It is also an event for which you must prepare with the same intensity that you approach grant or manuscript writing, or any other important event in your professional life. Ultimately, this first academic position should be yours to accept or decline at the conclusion of the interview process, and you should prepare and conduct yourself with this goal in mind. You should also be aware of the simple fact that you will be competing with two, possibly three, other candidates for a given position. Thus, it will be important to distinguish yourself from these other individuals before, during and following the interview. Your visit will include dinners, lunches, individual meetings with future colleagues, department chairs, and search committee members. With this in mind, the following paragraphs will highlight preparation tips that may be apparent and obvious, while other suggestions not so apparent, but clearly important to successfully navigate the interview process. First and foremost, realize that you are being judged at all times, and so my first piece of advice is to keep your guard up, particularly during more social situations such as “the dinner.”
It is immediately apparent to search committees whether or not individuals have done their homework. An initial strategy in your preparation includes obtaining an itinerary prior to your trip identifying individuals with whom you will be meeting. It is incumbent upon the candidate to become familiar with all individuals on the itinerary. This “homework” will include performing literature searches, becoming familiar with core facilities and centers, perhaps even downloading pictures of search committee members so that you can recognize faces upon first meetings. You should be able to ask everyone with whom you meet one intelligent question regarding their research. An example is “I read your recent paper in ____. While this is not my direct area, I found it interesting. Can you explain _______.” Remember, these individuals are your future colleagues. Collaborations may not be intuitively obvious and you can help point out areas of potential synergies and interactions.

Future colleagues are also valuable sources of information to assist you in determining whether or not this position is a good fit for your research and teaching interests. Listening to what is being said, as well as what is not said, can assist you in assessing the collaborative climate within a given department. Appropriate questions to ask future colleagues include the following: “With whom do you collaborate? How many students do you mentor? What is the average teaching load?” In all cases, you should be attentive and show interest in the conversation. Remember, you are being judged.

You will also meet with your future department chair. It is likely that he/she will initiate discussions regarding salary, tenure policies and procedures etc, so wait for these topics to arise naturally from your discussions. One critical question that you should ask the department chair includes where does he/she see you fitting into the general scheme of the department? What is his/her vision for the department and particularly new hires? Is the position nine months or 12 months? Clearly, answers to these very important questions will help you assess whether or not this department chair will be supportive of your career development. Also, ask to see your laboratory space. The inability to provide a candidate with assigned space is usually a bad predictor of departmental commitment and support. Additional questions include department policy on teaching buy-out, department support for graduate students (i.e., assistantships, training grants), and research grant “indirect” allocation policy.
Meeting with the search committee (usually as a group) can also be a very intimidating experience. However, you can also use this meeting time to your advantage and treat it as another opportunity to show your future colleagues that you have done your homework and are sincerely interested in the position for which you are interviewing. You should familiarize yourself with specific aspects of the undergraduate and graduate programs associated with your future department. Examples of appropriate questions to ask the search committee include the following: How are resources shared? Are there seed grant programs to get your research off the ground? Questions for which YOU should have prepared answers include how you see yourself fitting into the department and the types of courses you would like to teach, your five year plan with regard to research productivity, and grant mechanisms you will pursue during this same time frame.

You will always be asked to give a seminar. In your preparation, it will be important to know who will be in the audience, so ask ahead of time. You may need to provide additional background to assure that individuals with less familiarity with your area of interest can discern major findings from the lecture. At some point in the seminar, you should include a direction for your future research studies. In this regard, it is important to demonstrate independent thinking and to distinguish yourself from your current mentor. Because research independence is a critical characteristic for any future candidate, you may also be asked to give a “chalk talk” or seminar which focuses specifically on your future research, including specific aims and hypotheses. Whether you are asked to give one or two seminars, each of these experiences should be viewed as an opportunity to showcase and highlight your teaching skills. PRACTICE, practice, practice!

At some point, you will join your future colleagues in a social situation called “the dinner.” You will likely be tired from your busy day, so it is critical to remember to keep your guard up throughout the dinner. This is not the time to weigh in on departmental politics or share negative information about your current employer. Try to keep things positive. This is the time, however, to ask about popular housing developments, cost of living, quality of public schools, community recreational services, etc. Inevitably, you will be asked to reflect on your day and whether there are any questions that arose since your individual interviews. Try to have something prepared for this request, and by the way, limit yourself to one glass of alcohol!
Since this article deals with etiquette, upon returning from your destination, it is recommended that you send thank you letters to individuals with whom you have met, particularly the department chair and search committee. Avoid overly effusive language, but do express enthusiasm for the position and emphasize the unique contributions you will make to the department as a future colleague and faculty member. While email is most convenient, sending a more formal letter through the mail may make a more lasting impression.

In closing, that first faculty interview can be exhausting, both mentally and physically. Practice your seminar, know with whom you will be meeting, and check your curriculum vitae for mistakes–you will be asked about them. Above all, you should demonstrate enthusiasm during the entire interview process. Be competitive; make sure the job is yours to turn down!


I Survived the Academic Interview: An Applicant’s Point of View

Daniel Michele
University of Michigan

Interviewing for an assistant professor position in academia can be a bit intimidating. I recently participated in several interviews for assistant professor positions in academia from the applicant’s side of the table. Since the time that I interviewed for my first assistant professor position, a number of my postdoctoral colleagues have asked me questions and pried for advice about the academic interview process. From these conversations, some recurrent questions about the interview process highlighted some of the key apprehensions and questions of postdoctoral fellows that are approaching their next step in career advancement. The most common burning questions from my postdoctoral colleagues were:

How did you know it was time to start applying for jobs?
How did the interview process work…when did you talk about this or that?
Now that you have gone through the process, do you have any advice for me?
How did you negotiate the best job offer?

Although question 4 about negotiating the job offer is indeed very common and an intriguing part of the interview process, its is a topic that was covered in greater detail by Dr. Navar at the Experimental Biology 2006 symposium on “Transitioning from Post to Jr. Faculty.”1 Given the time and space constraints here I will only touch on it briefly. However, I highly recommend another excellent resource about negotiating job offers (and the entire academic interview process) entitled “Making the Right Moves” which was prepared by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and is freely distributed on the HHMI website2.
How did you know it was time to start applying for jobs? Choosing the time to make a career change is largely a personal decision. Ultimately, you want to be successful at both obtaining and retaining your new job. My recommendation is to do a little self-reflection by asking yourself these questions. The first question is, “Does my curriculum vitae display an intriguing level of accomplishment?” You need your CV to stand out from the 100 or so other applications for the position. As many of you know, most often one or two key papers in high profile journals will help set you apart. But your CV can also rise to the top if you have a consistent and highly productive body of work in one intriguing new area of research, a grant or fellowship that you can take with you to your new job, or perhaps even an outstanding amount of teaching experience. The second question is, “Considering everything I am currently doing, will my CV improve significantly in the next one to two years?” For example, let’s say you already have a first author paper in Nature, and four first author papers in American Journal of Physiology. Your current project is working well, but it is largely a follow up on your previous Nature paper and will likely be submitted to AJP. Is one more paper in AJP, in a field you already have demonstrated you are an expert, going to improve your CV? Likely not. However, if you have a novel, high impact project nearing completion that will be submitted to a high profile journal, or a pending major scientist development grant, my advice would be to wait. Your CV will be much more “intriguing” with its potential new additions in the next year. The third question is, “Do I have the independence and creativity to ensure my own success?” Once you are on your own, you will be overseeing the direction of your research, managing a laboratory, writing grants, and will be the senior author of all your papers. It’s a big responsibility and hopefully you have learned some of the tricks of the trade from your current mentor. If you believe you are ready, then go for it! Importantly, your mentor needs to be supportive of your answer to this last question. From a practical standpoint, your mentor may want the “star post-doc” to stay forever and finish a particular project, or is convinced your next big experiment will lead to a paper in Nature. But a mentor that says “I really wish Dr. Star PostDoc would stay in my lab longer” in the letter of reference is not going to hurt your chances of success. What you do need is a letter of reference from your mentor that clearly indicates you are equipped and well-suited for a career as an independent scientist running your own research program.

How did the interview process work…when did you talk about this or that? Generally, most academic positions are advertised with application deadlines between September and January for the following academic school year. Interviews most often occur between January and May. Most academic interviews also have a two interview format. During the first interview, you will give a public research seminar and meet several faculty, including the chair of the department. If the chair and faculty or search committee agree that they want to pursue you for the position available, they will invite you for a second interview. In the second interview, you will meet with more faculty, learn about your laboratory space and facilities available, and begin negotiations for the job offer.

There can be variations to the standard format. In recent years, it has not been uncommon for a third visit to be offered to give you an opportunity to look for a place to live and bring your family. Another more recent variation is that you might give a “chalk talk” during the second visit where you outline the aims of your first grant. Assuming that you have applied for several positions, you also may have to juggle several interviews. My advice would be to schedule your first choice position as the second interview. This way you will be more comfortable with the interview process, your seminar, and the types of questions you will be asked about your research and career direction. In all cases, when juggling multiple interviews, I would advise to be upfront and honest with all the chairs about the positions you are considering. Not only will they appreciate your honesty, but you will be seen as a very desirable candidate and they will be more understanding if you have to delay a decision on their job offer.

Do you have any advice for me? It is important to remember that the academic interview is a two-way conversation between you and your potential future employer. First and foremost, you have to convince them that you are the right person for the job. This should be the underlying the goal of everything you do and say at the first interview. If you convince them, they will have you back for a second interview with high likelihood that they will make you an offer. However, you should also remember that part of the interview process is to convince yourself that the position you are pursuing is right for you. Although, you will begin to learn about the position and the university at the first interview, you need to remember that a major goal of the second interview is to gather all the information you can so that you can make a decision if this job is really right for you and your career.

Convincing them you are the right person for the job. There are several things that academic research universities are looking for in a new faculty recruit. First and foremost, the person has to be an outstanding research scholar, mentor, and teacher. Your “value” as a new professor to the department is primarily determined by your ability to obtain research grants, your ability to promote the national (or international) prestige of the department through your scholarly work, and your ability to participate in the teaching mission of the department either at the undergraduate, graduate or professional level. Second, they want to see a person who has defined research goals. The department wants to be convinced that you have developed your own ideas for an independent research program that will be competitive for research grants within the first few years of your appointment. Third, they want a colleague who will contribute to the environment of the department. This means they want someone who is both willing and capable of either establishing collaborations with existing faculty and/or bringing new research approaches that may be of mutual interest to existing faculty.

Your major opportunity to convince them that you are an outstanding research scholar, mentor and teacher is your research seminar. Undoubtedly, this should be your best seminar performance ever. There are many different styles for preparing seminars and there likely is not one best way. However, here are a few tips:

� Memorize the first three slides. I can guarantee that you will be nervous. You don’t want to stumble through the first 10 minutes of your talk, so having the first three slides “down cold” will get you rolling. I am not a big fan of memorizing entire talks but it works for some. You want to be open to questions and interruptions and that can prove difficult if you memorized your talk.

� End with 5-10 minutes of future directions to stimulate questions. The faculty has seen your CV but will be interested to find out if you know what you are going to do next. Future directions always fuel questions from scientists because they want to know how you are going to accomplish your goals. This will help avoid dreaded post-talk silence.

� Leave at least 5-10 minutes for discussion. You want time to be able to show your new colleagues how you will interact with them and impress them with your independent thinking. An overly long presentation can be interpreted both as a lack of preparation and as an attempt by the speaker to avoid questions and confrontation.

� Show excitement. If you are not excited about your own work, why should anyone else be? I would encourage you to elaborate your individual “eureka moment.” This is that one experiment that let you know you were on to something interesting. This will both show excitement and define your ownership over the key experiments in the work (especially if you come from a large laboratory with many collaborators on your papers).

� Tell a story. Too many people try to show how great they are by showing everything they have ever done. It’s not necessary and not effective. They already have your CV. Pick a well defined story (I recommend less than 35 slides) and carefully describe the experiments that were key toward supporting your conclusions. This will display your expertise as a researcher in the laboratory and will identify the important contributions you made to the work. Furthermore, a talk that is well structured and pleasant to listen to will better show your communication capabilities as a scholar and teacher.

Your individual meetings with the chair and the other faculty members during the first interview are also critical toward convincing them that you are the right person for the job. In order to convince them that you have defined research goals I would recommend you have a five year plan for your laboratory ready. This will basically be your specific aims for your first NIH grant. It is not uncommon for people to ask you what your first grant will be on (either specifically or by asking you generally what you are going to do next). Being prepared for this question will show that you know what you want to do, how you will accomplish it, and the added bonus of being a good talking point with other scientists. The faculty you are meeting with are also looking for a good colleague. You will receive an itinerary before your visit. If you don’t, ask for one. Then research everybody that you are going to talk to and find out what they do. If you run out of things to talk about, ask them a good question about their recent papers. Showing interest in someone’s work is the ultimate flattery for a scientist. You also might be surprised by who you might identify as a potential future collaborator. If the possibility for interaction already exists, specifically tell that faculty member that you are open to collaboration and excited about the possibility of working along side them.

Convincing yourself the position is right for you. Hopefully, all of your first interviews will be successful and you will be offered second interviews. Remember, the interview process is not over until you have signed an offer letter, so stay on your toes. But at a second interview, you can be fairly certain that they are interested in making you an offer for the position. The second interview should give you the opportunity to really determine if the position is right for you. This is a big decision and your career success depends a lot on where you decide to do your work so you need to find answers to several important questions:

Is it the right balance of teaching and research for me? Being a course director of an introductory undergraduate course will not allow much time for research. Conversely, an expectation of maintaining two NIH grants will demand a lot of time and not allow as much time to devote to students and teaching.

How does the department/university support the career development of young faculty? Some departments have a well-defined mentorship program for young faculty (pairing you with a senior faculty member), provide administrative support for faculty, and have large numbers of pilot programs you can apply to. Some give you nothing. Find out what is available and determine what support you need.

Do the resources available support my research interests? The department may tout that they have the best transgenic animal core facility in the country. If you work on mice, great! If you work on C. elegans, does it really matter? The department may also have shared equipment available. Ask to see it and verify that it seems to be in working order and will meet your research needs.

Are there colleagues here that I can interact with? It is difficult to be successful as a scientist working in a vacuum. You are new to running a laboratory and your laboratory is new. You will need people that you can seek out for support in terms of advice, reagents, techniques and equipment. If the department seems to be a closed door society, make sure you are okay with that.

Is the start up package competitive and sufficient to support my research for three years and can I keep what I don’t spend? The current funding levels at NIH (and all funding associations) are low. Many grants will have to be revised and resubmitted to obtain funding, and it takes time between each submission cycle. Some universities will let you keep your unspent startup money as a “rainy day” fund and this is an added bonus to be considered when making your decision.

What are the expectations for salary recovery? As a PhD in a clinical department, the expectation could be as high as 100% of your salary needs to come from your grants (a “soft money” position). This means you will likely need two and probably three NIH grants. In a teaching university, you may only have to cover your summer salary on grants (a “hard money” position). Most universities are somewhere between the two. They will have a policy about what happens to the extra money if you exceed the expectation, and in some cases you can receive bonus salary.

How do you go about finding the answers to these questions during the second interview? First you need to establish a dialogue with the department chair. If you can’t now, will you ever be able to? Most chairs will be more than happy to answer any of your questions. After all, they are interested in hiring you. Your chair will also be your advocate in future tenure decisions so they should be open about talking about expectations for your position. Second, I would recommend requesting to speak with assistant professors in the second interview. The department will ask you who you want to meet with. Ask assistant professors directly how they like their job and how they feel their careers are supported by the department. Third, do your research and come with questions. Almost all universities and departments publicize their core facilities and shared resources on the web. If they do not have prices listed, you need to know how much things will cost like animal per diems and core facility recharge rates, for the resources that you will commonly be using. You may make a decision that having your own equipment will be more cost effective. Fourth, ask your current mentor or chair what start-up packages are reasonable. There is some information about average start-up packages on the web (2), but it can quickly become outdated. Finally, I would highly recommend drafting a fairly detailed budget. In my case, I went through the Fisher catalogue and priced out nearly everything I needed for my laboratory. This will give you confidence that your start-up package request is both reasonable and sufficient. It also will show your future boss that you are serious about your job and you know what you really need. If you have a final budget that exceeds what you think you can minimally survive on by 20-30% and doesn’t exceed the reasonable range of equivalent positions elsewhere, that should give room for some negotiation. Of course, if you have more than one offer you are considering, there can be some back and forth negotiations. But ultimately, the person you are negotiating with could be your future boss, and the department may be supplying some of the funding for your recruitment, so you don’t want to be overaggressive. I think if you are honest about what you need and you draw up a detailed budget, then the chair has to defend why you do not need those particular things to be successful, or ways you might be able to reduce your startup costs.
Before you head off to your first interview here are a few last words of advice. Remember, it doesn’t hurt to be friendly. After the interview, send the chair and each person you met with an email thanking them for their time and reminding them of any potential collaborations you discussed. During the interview, don’t talk about things you don’t like. Try to put a positive spin on everything. Ultimately as you make your decision, remember there really is no such thing as an ideal job. You will always be balancing pluses and minuses. Finally, your scientific life is only one part of the equation. You have to also live and enjoy where you work. Remember, the academic interview is a two-way conversation. If you convinced them you are a right for the job, and convinced yourself the job is right for you, then you have successfully navigated the academic interview.

References:
1. Web address: http://www.the-aps.org/careers/careers1/Postdoc/tacsympostdoc2006.htm

2. Web address: http://www.hhmi.org/grants/office/graduate/lab_book.html.

[Index] [Mutual Respect: A Key to Facilitating Learning] [Membership] [APS News]
[Chapter News] [Education] [Public Affairs] [Communications]
[Experimental Biology ‘07] [APS Committee Reports] [Positions Available]
[Book Review] [People & Places] [The Wine Wizard] [Senior Physiologists' News]
[Scientific Meetings and Congresses][APS Membership Application]