Pages

Magnetic fields in gamma-ray burst jets

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are the most dramatic short-lived violent events observed in the universe. They are often described as releasing a quantity of energy, in less than a minute, that is at least as much as a star like the Sun releases in its entire 10 billion year lifetime. Since the first detection of a gamma-ray burst in 1967, the central question has been to determine the nature of the process or processes that can release so much energy so quickly.

We've discussed gamma-ray burst several times before, such as here, here, and here.

The defining characteristic property of a GRB is a rapid, highly energetic burst of gamma rays, lasting only a few seconds. Most of the GRB energy is released in that event. But beyond that, GRBs exhibit a bewildering diversity of characteristics – reflecting a diversity in the conditions that can produce a GRB.

The most noticeable difference observed in GRBs is that some events are over very quickly – within 1 or 2 seconds – while others include an "afterglow" of radiation less energetic than gamma rays, lasting as long as minutes in some cases. In a few instances there are events that have some properties of both "short" and "long" types of GRB.

Gamma rays cannot penetrate the Earth's atmosphere, so the initial phase of any GRB is detectable only from a satellite-based instrument. This is rather limiting in terms of the types of observations that can be made. For example, satellites lacked instruments that could record a spectrum of a GRB event in lower-energy electromagnetic radiation. Without a spectrum, astronomers cannot measure redshift, and hence the distance of the event.

The development and deployment within the last 10 years of systems that could use satellite detection of GRBs to activate automated ground-based telescopes have dramatically improved this situation. It's now possible to collect much more detailed data, so that astronomers have been able to learn a lot more about GRBs – in many cases.

Even so, many short GRB events are over in just a few seconds, and therefore much less is yet known about short GRBs. The best current guess is that such events are caused by the merger of a pair of binary neutron stars.

The research to be described here, therefore, concerns long GRBs, where it is relatively easy to study the characteristics of the lower-energy electromagnetic radiation, which makes up the afterglow for several minutes or even tens of minutes after the initial burst.

A general consensus has emerged that gamma-ray burst progenitors are certain types of supernovae. Not just any type, either, because the progenitor must be capable of releasing the amount of energy actually observed in a GRB. This rules out Type Ia supernovae, which result from a thermonuclear explosion of matter that has accreted onto the surface of a white dwarf star.

Type Ia supernovae are important in cosmology, because they all have roughly the same intrinsic brightness. This makes it possible to determine the approximate distance of a Type Ia supernova event, just from the observed brightness. By comparing this distance with the redshift of the supernova it is possible to determine how rapidly the universe has expanded in the past. This, in turn, is what made it possible to conclude, in 1997, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

However, the energy released by a Type Ia supernova is far too small to account for a GRB. Instead, a different supernova mechanism, known as "core collapse" is needed. Classification of supernovae is a little confusing, since it was originally done on the basis of spectral characteristics. Type II supernovae have a particular line in their spectrum due to hydrogen, while Type I supernovae do not.

Type II supernovae result from the collapse of very massive stars at the end of their lives, when they can no longer support their own weight by the pressure of fusion occuring in their constituent matter. But it turns out that some supernovae lacking the hydrogen spectral line are too energetic to result from the same mechanism as that of Type Ia supernovae. These types are known as Type Ib and Type Ic, and they also result from core collapses of massive stars (that have already burned off all their hydrogen).

So there are significant differences even among core collapse supernovae, resulting from such factors as the total mass of the progenitor star and the original composition of the star, among other things. Such differences can account for some of the differences observed if such supernovae are responsible for GRBs.

But by no means all core collapse supernovae produce a GRB. Theoretical considerations dictate that several other factors must also be present. For one thing, the supernova must result in the formation of a black hole that is massive enough to support a large accretion disk of matter orbiting around it. A neutron star, which is the alternative remnant of a supernova, just isn't massive enough. To get a sufficiently massive black hole, the progenitor star must be at least 40 Solar masses.

High mass alone, however, is not enough. The progenitor star must also be rotating rapidly enough that the angular momentum of the system is large enough to cause most of the matter and energy from the supernova explosion to be focused into a jet of angular width at most about 20 degrees. This concentrates most of the energy of the explosion into a narrow beam, so that the energy emitted in our direction matches what we actually observe. If the beam were not so narrow, the energy would not appear to be the magnitude that we observe.

There are additional factors that affect the varying characteristics of GRBs that we observe. In particular, the distribution of matter in the interstellar medium surrounding the supernova is important. It is the collision between the jets and this matter that determines the intensity and duration of the afterglow we observe for some time after the original burst.

And there's more. The jets of matter and energy from a GRB event may well be powered by the energy of the original explosion. But that's not the only possibility. Suppose there are strong magnetic fields surrounding the progenitor star. Then there will also be a considerable amount of energy in the magnetic flux, and this can also supply power to the jets.

Strong magnetic fields would have another consequence as well. The jets consist partly of electrons moving at relativistic speeds (very close to the speed of light). These electrons will follow a spiral path around lines of magnetic flux. This creates a type of electromagnetic radiation known as synchrotron radiation. If present, this radiation would make up part of the afterglow we can observe.

How would we know if synchrotron radiation, and hence magnetic fields, are present? That's simple – the radiation would be partly polarized, provided that the magnetic fields are orderly and not all tangled up.

And this is precisely what recent research has observed in the case of one particular GRB event (GRB 090102), which was detected January 2, 2009. Specifically, a polarization of 10±1% was observed at optical wavelengths. This degree of polarization is quite rare in astrophysical events, and it strongly suggests the presence of large-scale magnetic fields associated with GRB 090102. These fields should contribute substantially to the observable energy of the GRB.

Abstract:

Ten per cent polarized optical emission from GRB 090102
The nature of the jets and the role of magnetic fields in gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) remains unclear. In a baryon-dominated jet only weak, tangled fields generated in situ through shocks would be present. In an alternative model, jets are threaded with large-scale magnetic fields that originate at the central engine and that accelerate and collimate the material. To distinguish between the models the degree of polarization in early-time emission must be measured; however, previous claims of gamma-ray polarization have been controversial. Here we report that the early optical emission from GRB 090102 was polarized at 10 ± 1 per cent, indicating the presence of large-scale fields originating in the expanding fireball. If the degree of polarization and its position angle were variable on timescales shorter than our 60-second exposure, then the peak polarization may have been larger than ten per cent.




ResearchBlogging.org
Steele, I., Mundell, C., Smith, R., Kobayashi, S., & Guidorzi, C. (2009). Ten per cent polarized optical emission from GRB 090102 Nature, 462 (7274), 767-769 DOI: 10.1038/nature08590


Further reading:

Magnetic Power Revealed in Gamma-Ray Burst Jet (12/9/09)

Huge Cosmic Explosions Fueled by Magnetism (12/9/09)

Gamma-ray bursts: Magnetism in a cosmic blast (12/10/09)

In the News this month: the role of magnetic fields in GRBs (1/3/10)
Read More >>

Selected readings 1/30/10

Interesting reading and news items.

These items are also bookmarked at my Diigo account.


Narcolepsy research triggers myriad brain studies
Research over the past decade has shown that narcolepsy is caused by the loss of a type of brain cell that produces orexin. Scientists have found that the chemical also helps determine when we are asleep and awake and plays a role in regulating appetite and addiction. [Boston.com, 11/30/09]

H.M. recollected
These brains, normal and with various pathologies, will be preserved on thousands of slides that, in turn, are converted into extraordinarily high-resolution digital images freely available online. Researchers around the world will be able to use the material to conduct investigations ranging from parsing basic cognitive functions or the physical effects of diseases like Alzheimer’s to more abstract inquiries such as how memories are created and changed and the organic nature of consciousness. [SignOnSanDiego.com, 11/30/09]

A Lost European Culture, Pulled From Obscurity
New research, archaeologists and historians say, has broadened understanding of this long overlooked culture, which seemed to have approached the threshold of “civilization” status. Writing had yet to be invented, and so no one knows what the people called themselves. To some scholars, the people and the region are simply Old Europe. [NYTimes.com, 11/30/09]

The Psychology of Power
Joris Lammers at Tilburg University, in the Netherlands, and Adam Galinsky at Northwestern University, in Illinois, have conducted a series of experiments which attempted to elicit states of powerfulness and powerlessness in the minds of volunteers. Having done so, as they report in Psychological Science, they tested those volunteers’ moral pliability. Lord Acton, they found, was right. [The Economist, 1/21/10]

New-found galaxies may be farthest back in time and space yet
By pushing the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope to its very limits as a cosmic time machine, astronomers have identified three galaxies that may hail from an era only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. The faint galaxies may be the most distant starlit bodies known, each lying some 13.2 billion light-years from Earth. [ScienceNews, 1/3/10]

7 Tipping Points That Could Transform Earth
When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issue its last report in 2007, environmental tipping points were a footnote. A troubling footnote, to be sure, but the science was relatively new and unsettled. Straightforward global warming was enough to worry about. But when the IPCC meets in 2014, tipping points — or tipping elements, in academic vernacular — will get much more attention. Scientists still disagree about which planetary systems are extra-sensitive to climate shifts, but the possibility can’t be ignored. [Wired.com, 12/23/09]

Cancer genomes sequenced
Scientists have charted the most complete cancer genomes to date, according to two studies published in Nature this week, providing a catalog of some 90% of all the somatic mutations in melanoma and a type of lung cancer, as well as a starting point for identifying potentially causal mutations common to these types of cancer. [The Scientist, 12/16/09]

Pluripotency process unveiled
Scientists have identified a key component of cellular reprogramming that may aid in more efficiently creating induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, according to a study published online in Nature today (December 21). [The Scientist, 12/21/09]

Glial cells aid memory formation
Neurons need non-electrical brain cells known as astrocytes to establish synaptic memory, according to study published this week in Nature. The findings challenge the long-standing belief that this process involves only the activity of the neurons themselves, and bring glial cells onto the center stage in the study of brain activity. [The Scientist, 1/13/10]

Geeky Math Equation Creates Beautiful 3-D World
The quest by a group of math geeks to create a three-dimensional analogue for the mesmerizing Mandelbrot fractal has ended in success. They call it the Mandelbulb. The 3-D renderings were generated by applying an iterative algorithm to a sphere. [Wired.com, 12/9/09]

Hungry Amoebas Spawn Biggest Viruses Ever
Made from a hodgepodge of genetic bits and pieces, the newly discovered Marseillevirus is the world’s largest virus. But fame is fleeting: It’s almost sure to be supplanted by another, even bigger virus. What’s really special about Marseillevirus is where it comes from. Like other giant viruses, it was found inside amoebas — lowly, single-celled organisms that devour anything they can absorb. Their voracious appetites make them incubators of genetic remixing among their prey, and may hint at processes that spawned complex life. [Wired.com, 12/8/09]

Rethinking artificial intelligence: Researchers hope to produce 'co-processors' for the human mind
The field of artificial-intelligence research (AI), founded more than 50 years ago, seems to many researchers to have spent much of that time wandering in the wilderness, swapping hugely ambitious goals for a relatively modest set of actual accomplishments. Now, some of the pioneers of the field, joined by later generations of thinkers, are gearing up for a massive 'do-over' of the whole idea. [Physorg.com, 12/7/09]

Cosmic rays hunted down: Physicists are closing in on the origin of cosmic rays
A thin rain of charged particles continually bombards our atmosphere from outer space. The mysterious particles were first detected 100 years ago but until 10 years ago when a new type of telescope began to come online physicists weren't sure where the "cosmic rays" came from or how they were generated. They suspected the particles were accelerated by supernova shockwaves. [Physorg.com, 12/7/09]

Creativity in mathematics
Mathematicians have always felt a strong creative aspect in their subject, but only in recent years has the flowering of connections between mathematics and the arts made this aspect apparent to the general public. The collection of three articles in the Notices, together with Atiyah's short introductory piece, explore some of the various ways in which art and beauty appear in mathematics. [Physorg.com, 12/8/09]

XMM-Newton Celebrates Decade of Discovery
ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray observatory is celebrating its 10th anniversary. During its decade of operation, this remarkable space observatory has supplied new data for every aspect of astronomy. From our cosmic backyard to the further reaches of the Universe, XMM-Newton has changed the way we think of space. [ScienceDaily, 12/10/09]


RSS access:
Blog posts labeled "readings"
Items saved at Diigo
Read More >>

Academic Shopping Around

By request, here are some of my thoughts on applying for, and possibly interviewing for, another tenure(track) position when you already have one.

My expertise on this particular topic comes from having left one university for another before coming up for tenure at the first place, and from various situations that have arisen related to my possibly moving from my current university (post-tenure).

Pre-tenure moves

As with most such issues involving life and career, there is no one "rule" to follow regarding whether you should apply to other schools when you are already on the tenure-track. Getting an offer at another (better or peer) institution is a well-known route to early tenure or at least a retention offer of some sort, and there are many reasons why you might want to try to do this.

If you want to apply for other jobs, you should do it. You should try to get the best job you can and not worry (too much) about what your colleagues will think.

If, however, you are very happy where you are and are wondering whether you should look around anyway, I suggest checking out a few things, such as: (1) What is your department/university's track record with retention offers? What has your department chair and/or the relevant dean done in the past?; and (2) Is it worth it to you, economically and/or emotionally, to go through the process of applying, interviewing, and negotiating?

This is a tricky topic because if you interview at another university and have no intention of accepting an offer if you get one, you are wasting a lot of people's time and another institution's money. I know that this is how the game is played, "everyone does it", etc. etc., but whenever I am on the receiving end (i.e., in the interviewing department) for someone who is just trying to get something from their existing institution, it's hard not to feel some hostility towards the person who just wasted our time and department's resources.

At the same time, I don't like it when hiring committee members spend time cynically wondering about the motives of a tenure-track or tenured candidate. I think we have to take everyone's application at face value, assume (perhaps delusionally) that they are sincere, and try to hire the "best" person for the position.

There's no good solution to this. It is how the game is played.

I've heard that women are more reluctant than men to go out and get other offers and negotiate a retention offer, owing to feelings of loyalty or insecurity or some other emotional factor(s). I'm sure there have been studies about this, and in my own case, I definitely found it difficult to apply for other jobs while I was working hard to succeed in my existing job, which I liked very much. Nevertheless, I applied for other jobs because it was the only way my husband and I were going to find academic jobs anywhere near each other. I therefore stayed in the job market for personal reasons, sincerely trying to get another faculty position that was better for my family and me.

I wasn't quite close enough to the promotion year for it to be realistic for University 2 to hire me with tenure, even if they would have considered that, but I got credit for my years at University 1, and came up for tenure not long after starting my new position at University 2. Some Assistant Professors may be hired with tenure at their University 2 if that university needs to do that to recruit them and is convinced they would easily get tenure anyway.

Each institution is different. I have several colleagues who were hired as Assistant Professors at a new university after they were already Associate Professors with tenure at the university they left. This may occur when University 1 is not even close to being a peer institution to University 2, but I think it is always worth asking if you could be hired with tenure.

Another option for "senior" Assistant Professors moving to another university is to be hired as an Associate Professor without tenure, but to be evaluated for tenure soon after arriving. You still have to go through the tenure process, perhaps within 1-2 years of arriving at your new institution.

Summary: If you think you might like to be somewhere else and appealing options arise, go for it. If the thought fills you with dread and exhaustion and you are content where you are, don't do it You're the only one who can determine whether it is worth it to you.

Post-tenure: active

If you want to leave your current institution for a better department, location, planet etc. or if you want to leave for personal reasons, just as in the pre-tenure case: go for it. Apply for whatever looks appealing and don't worry about what other people think. You can tell some trusted colleagues in your current department and even get a reference letter to attest to your sanity and awesomeness as a colleague. Then, if you get an offer and it's better than your retention package (relative to your reasons for applying in the first place), you can make your decision.

Another possible scenario is similar to one discussed for the pre-tenure cases: i.e., one in which you feel you need to get an outside offer to get ahead at your current institution. But again, do this only if it is worth it to you overall when considering all the factors, economic and emotional.

For some people, it seems easy. I have known faculty who were continually on the job market, accumulating offers and getting retention offers in return. Maybe that's how they gauge whether they still had "it".

The decision whether to apply to other institutions for reasons of dissatisfaction with your current institution might seem straightforward, but in fact it is not, especially when your spouse/family are in the equation. Even if there are things that make you unhappy at your current institution, how do you know that another place would be better? For example, if you have unpleasant colleagues in your current department, how do you know you won't have different unpleasant colleagues in another place? If you don't like your department chair, is it worth it to move, knowing that the insidious department chair might be replaced by someone more sympathetic in a few years?

Even if another place seems like it's great (colleagues, location etc.), there may be unexpected things that could profoundly affect your academic existence. Things like: how are graduate students funded? Do you have to raise grad student salary + other expenses entirely from your grants or is there some institutional support (TA, fellowship)? At your current level of funding, what are the consequences for the size of your research group in these different economic scenarios?

Also: If you rely on certain facilities, what is the situation at the Other University? At one place (to which I did not apply but which discussed employment options with me anyway), I was told that the institution would provide a substantial match to a proposal that I could write to get equipment that I already have at my current institution. That wasn't too appealing, although in some cases it might be a way to trade-up to a zippy new set of toys, if one is confident about getting an equipment proposal funded.

I have done one "official" post-tenure interview for a senior faculty position, and it wasn't hard to explain why I might want to leave University 2 for University 3. I didn't trash University 2, but just said that I was exploring other options, was interested in some of the new opportunities available at University 3, and that I was not considering leaving University 2 because I was unhappy there; it just seemed like a good time in my career to see what other possibilities there might be. The outcome of this adventure was reasonably satisfying for most concerned.

Post-tenure: passive

This is a strange one. At least, it has been a strange one for me. I would describe my position in my field of Science as "reasonably successful". I am not a cosmic superstar, but I am also doing pretty well -- well enough to be on the radar screen of other universities. I have been invited to give several talks that turned out to be more than just a talk (i.e., stealth interviews), I've been surprised by what I thought was a routine chat with a department chair who asked me if I'd be willing to move, and I've had several other somewhat surprising opportunities arise without my seeking them out. There seem to be a few of these every year. My husband has had similar experiences, as all these institutions know they would have to hire the both of us.

So what to do about these quasi-recruitment opportunities? In fact, we have been quasi-fortunate that our current department chair was proactive at one point and went to the Dean/Provost before another institution got too far with an offer. That's kind of an ideal situation, especially if you are relatively happy where you are and ambivalent about going somewhere else, however awesome the other place is in some ways.

There are still a few institutions with which we are in a maybe-in-a-few-years-we-can-talk-more limbo zone, and I guess it's nice to know there might be options in case our department/university becomes an inhospitable place. I'd rather not spend my entire career on the job market, but since I'm not actively applying for jobs, I don't really have to think about it much.

When an established faculty member moves to another institution, the move also has consequences for graduate students and postdocs, and there are good ways and bad ways to deal with moving with or without research group members (but that's too big a topic for this post).
Read More >>

Interviewing Info IV

What is the most important part of the interview? The talk? The meeting with the chair and/or hiring committee and/or dean? The individual meetings with faculty? The 45 second elevator talk you have with the Famous Professor who is too busy to meet with you or attend your talk? All of the above? Or does none of it really matter because they've already decided and/or the decision will be based on an intangible sense for how well your research specialty/personality fit with the department?

Answer: Yes and no.

And how's this for another annoying non-answer: All of those things are important, but at the same time, you don't have to be amazingly awesome every second of your interview and you can even have a few less-than-great interactions and still do well overall.

For example, I have seen successful candidates who gave rather boring or somewhat inadequate talks but then did really well in other aspects of the interview. So maybe they haven't yet learned how to give a good talk (and might need some proactive help learning how to teach), but they are clearly creative, interesting, motivated people with good ideas and a sincere interest in being part of the department.

And I have seen very polished talks given by people who had nothing to say beyond what was in the talk.

So the talk is important -- in fact, it is quite important for those whose only glimpse of you is during that talk -- but it's not the only factor.

Clearly there are many factors, and there is a large degree of randomness in how a candidate is evaluated and perceived. Keeping in mind that my own evaluation method is likely different from that of other faculty because we are all individual special scary people, here's how I make my decisions during faculty searches:

- I have an initial general impression from the application files. We invite candidates based on this initial information, so that's the typical starting point. This impression may or may not end up corresponding with my final opinion and in fact doesn't seem to influence my final evaluations much, if at all. Whether or not I thought a particular candidate should be interviewed, I try to start with a positive attitude about each one, on the assumption that any one of them might eventually be my colleague.

- If I'm on a hiring committee, I might meet the candidate early-on in the interview, e.g., during breakfast the first morning. In many cases, however, my first view of a candidate is at their general talk, so the talk is the next data point in my overall evaluation. In the talk, did the candidate provide a general context in which we can understand the research or did he/she just dive right into the methods/data? Whether or not I personally think the research is interesting, did the candidate explain it well, present convincing results and interpretations, summarize the key points, possibly indicating future directions? Did the candidate handle questions well after the talk? (That last one is of course very subjective; I recall one candidate talk in which some faculty thought a candidate was "combative" but others thought s/he was "confident").

- In some departments/institutions, there is a second talk. There are different ways that the two talks are organized, including: (1) one is general, one is more specialized; (2) one is research, one is teaching; (3) one is a classic research talk, one is a 'vision thing' talk or discussion. Whatever the format of the second talk, I find that it is extremely useful for getting a better impression of a candidate's abilities and potential. Most people can get up and give a decent 50-minute talk on something related to their research, but you start to see the energy and creativity more in a second talk.

- During the individual meeting, typically in my office, I am not interested in grilling the candidate or making them outline their research plans in detail for the next 10 years. I just want to have an interesting conversation about something related to their research or mine or even just something interesting in Science. If there's time, I'm also happy to give my general perspective on the department/university -- there are things that I really like about this place and think are somewhat unique and worth discussing -- or to describe my research group and how I've organized it in terms of number of students, funding, and so on.

When I was a young professor, I had some truly bizarre individual meetings with faculty candidates. The bizarreness related in part to the (erroneous) assumption that because I did not have tenure yet and/or was a young-looking female, I didn't have a role in the hiring decision or, if I did, that my opinion wasn't as important as that of my senior colleagues. The fact that I was the only assistant professor in my department for a while (and a very rare FSP) probably enhanced this (erroneous) assumption by some candidates.

This (erroneous) assumption manifested itself in different ways in different candidates: some were openly patronizing or rude (a rather shocking thing to do even if I hadn't had a vote in the hiring decision), and others treated me as a source of inside information to help them impress the more important professors.

One hapless candidate started talking about people I had never heard of and saying that so-and-so was doing really well this year. I thought we were having a conversation about scientists in the candidate's field, and said that I wasn't familiar enough with this field to know these people. It turns out that the candidate had studied up on the university's athletic teams, learning the names and positions of key players and their scoring records, and thought it would be good to practice on me first before attempting this with the senior professors. I was stunned that (a) anyone would bother to do this, under the (erroneous) assumption that it would matter, and that (b) anyone would admit to having done this bizarre thing, much less admit to "practicing" on me because I was only an assistant professor.

All this is to say that my general advice is to BE REAL. Sure, go ahead and read up on the webpages about faculty and their research interests; this will help you learn about a place and also give you some conversational fodder for some of the individual conversations that might otherwise drag a bit. But don't pretend to have interests you don't, don't try to psych out the hierarchy of a department, treat everyone with respect (including students and staff), and try to enjoy the variety of people you meet.

But let's not forget one other chance for candidates and faculty to interact:

- Social events. Perhaps this reflects my own neuroses and lack of social skills, but these are my least favorite part of an interview. I found them extremely stressful as an interviewee, and I don't particularly enjoy them as an interviewer. Breakfast meetings are the worst, perhaps because I am not a so-called morning person.

On rare occasions, however, these can be very fun. I recall some interviews at which I got along really well with some faculty and we ended up having a great time at dinner or lunch or whenever.

In general, though, these events can be kind of weird and awkward. They are technically still part of the interview, but at the same time, you're all supposed to socialize and chat, in some cases for hours (but not about spouses or children!).

Unless a candidate reveals some truly disturbing behavior at a meal or other social event, I don't tend to consider this part of the interview to be as important as some of the other parts. If I had a great conversation with someone when we were talking in the department, but later I find their views on wine or weather to be dull, I will still have a very positive impression of them as a candidate.

By the time the exhausting interview is over, you and at least some of your possible future colleagues will have spent a lot of time together. It is likely that you and several other candidates all did well during the interview, and then the final decision comes down to factors beyond your control.

The faculty will discuss their impressions with each other, get input from students and postdocs (in some departments), and may then quickly reach consensus or spend hours/weeks bitterly divided.

In my experience, whether or not the person who shows up to take the job was the unanimous choice of the faculty or the choice of a small but powerful faction, we old faculty are interested in helping our new colleague get started, wish him/her well, and want him/her to succeed. Everyone should start with a clean slate when starting a new tenure-track job, no matter what happened during the interview process.

My wish for members of my own research group when they are out on the interview trail is that they feel good about their interviews, whether or not they get an offer. Of course I want them to get offers and have many enticing options, but if you come out of an interview feeling like you did your best and you had some positive interactions with faculty and students, that's an important thing for your confidence, and for your next interview(s).
Read More >>

Diversity in Science Carnival #6: Perspectives on STEM Diversity and Outreach from ScienceOnline2010

Originally conceived as a Science Blogging conference for science bloggers in the Research Triangle, North Carolina (because obviously that little piece of real estate is the center of the science universe) it has expanded into something more, something grand, something viral. ScienceOnline is an international meeting of hearts, minds and modems of scientists, communicators, and students of all ages & levels who have at least two things in common – Science and the Internet.

I was scheduled to co-moderate a session about STEM Diversity, but was unable to attend for personal reasons (the dissertation). I was able to follow all of the proceedings online – which was the point of the entire conference: how to engage the public in science conversations using the internet. Many people think of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as fields with too few women or people of color among the ranks. This is true for some fields and in some places. However, I can tell you that the ScienceOnline Community is dedicated to diversity and inclusion of traditionally under-represented peoples. This brings me to a very well made point by IrrationalPoint at Modus dopens On gratitude of science scholars, e.g. white males, who are actually decent and kind people who treat women and minorities like, well, regular people.

There were 5 sessions that discussed Diversity and Outreach – the hurdles, the successes, and new directions.
· Casting a wider net: Promoting gender and ethnic diversity in STEM (I was supposed to co-moderate this one)
· Talking Trash: Online Outreach from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch
· Citizen Science
· Citizen Science and Students
· Science Education: Adults
· Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Session: Engaging underrepresented groups in online science media.
At first I thought this session and the Casting a wider net session were redundant. But co-moderator and college professor/administrator Abel Pharmboy presents this topic in a new and compelling way in his post #scio10 Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Session: Engaging Underrepresented Groups in Online Science Media

Janet D. Stemwedel of Adventures & Ethics in Science seemed to be everywhere at once. She seemed to have attended every one of these panels and live-tweeted like crazy. She recaps her tweets:
· #scio10 aftermath: my tweets from "Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Session: Engaging underrepresented groups in online science media".
· #scio10 aftermath: my tweets from "Talking Trash: Online Outreach from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch".
· #scio10 aftermath: my tweets from "Casting a wider net: Promoting gender and ethnic diversity in STEM".
and also offers thought-provoking summaries from the sessions as well:
· scio10 aftermath: some thoughts on "Casting a wider net: Promoting gender and ethnic diversity in STEM"
· #scio10 aftermath: some thoughts on "Talking Trash: Online Outreach from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch".

Greg Laden, who is always a slice of heaven, gives a very good overview of all of the sessions he attended, which included the Citizen Science session and the MLK Memorial Session in #scio10 Science Online 2010 recollections and reflections on the sessions I attended.

And one of my newest blog friends, Vicky of TGAW (and I’m really sad I didn’t attend and meet her) had me in near tears with her post Science Online 2010 and the Neighborhood Kids – Community and Role Models. This summary is one of my very favorites from the conference. Vicky and her husband Ryan of Ideonexus, completely embody the heart and soul of casting a wider net in STEM. She weaves personal accounts of their experiences with teaching, providing laptops, and free internet access to the neighborhood kids as she summarizes the sessions related to diversity and outreach. Ryan's summaries were on point, too.

· Science Online 2010: Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Session: Engaging Underrepresented Groups in Online Science Media
· Science Online 2010: Casting a Wider Net: Promoting Gender and Ethnic Diversity in STEM

Last, but certainly not least is Dr. Isis’ account of online diversity and inclusion in her always straight-forward and provoking way. MLK Day, Blogrolling, and Protecting Your Brand briefly summarizes her take home points from the MLK Memorial Session and how African-American and Latino Americans are over-represented in the mobile tech markets. Everyone who attended that session noted this and all agreed that IF we are serious about engaging these audiences in STEM, then we must meet them in their preferred social media space….Hmm…That has me thinking – Urban Science Adventures! © on a Blackberry, iPod, or mobile phone near you….

Finally, Dr. Isis is reminded by one of her readers, and in turn reminds us all, that Including Disability in Diversity Discussions #scio10 is equally important. I admit to dropping the ball on this one, not because it isn’t important, but because of my lack of experiences. So, this carnival will also highlight Inclusion efforts and role models of people with disabilities in STEM.

Be sure to check out the video mash up of the ScienceOnline 2010 conference.



Science Online 2010 Flickr/Picasa mashup from Graham Steel on Vimeo.

See you next month for Black History Month! Submissions can be made here. Carnival will be posted February 27, 2010.


Read More >>

Interviewing Info III

Here are some more random thoughts about interviewing for a faculty position, based on questions from readers. I was hoping for some really strange questions, but I don't mind discussing some of the classic ones:

What should you wear to an interview for a faculty position?


The answer to this will certainly vary depending on the specific field. There may be some fields in which suit-like garb is the norm, and others in which a person wearing a suit will seem bizarrely dressed. I have three things to say on the issue of Interview Attire:

1. Look around your own department and at conferences and see what faculty wear when they need to look particularly professional. If you were alert to this issue during any faculty searches conducted while you were a grad student or postdoc, perhaps you have an idea what interviewees in your field typically wear.

2. If you're going to dress up a bit, at least wear something nice and comfortable. I remember one interviewee whose heels were bleeding profusely into her nice new shoes during her interview. I discreetly asked her if she wanted a bandage or if there was something else I could do to help her, but she refused all assistance and said it didn't hurt. There is no way that did not hurt. My advice: Try not to acquire physical scars from interviews.

3. Others may disagree, but I think that unless you wear something wildly inappropriate, what you wear does not matter much. If you dress slightly more formally or informally than is typical, this isn't going to detract from your awesome interview talk and the strong positive impression you make with your energy and your ideas for cutting-edge research. Even so, although you should explore new frontiers in research, it might not be a good idea to explore new frontiers in interview attire -- there are probably sartorial limits that aren't worth pushing past in the interview, but, although I shall avoid defining these limits, I will say that I think there is a broad region of acceptable attire. I have seen successful candidates, male and female, interview in suits and in jeans-and-nice-shirt. It didn't matter.

Summary: Wear something that is professional-looking within the norms of your field but that also makes you feel confident and comfortable.

Can you push the start-date back for starting a faculty position?

This is of course not an interview issue but, like salary and start-up, a once-you-get-an-offer issue. You may have other alluring opportunities, such as a postdoc you want to do to help launch your subsequent faculty career, and it might be in everyone's interest that you have this experience. Or, it might be essential to the department that you start as soon as possible.

If this issue comes up during an interview, you can be open about your options, but these types of conversations shouldn't really take place in detail until you get an offer and start negotiating. Your getting an offer or not should not depend on whether you can start by a certain date.

If the department insists that you start by a certain date, you can take it or leave it. If the department is more flexible, that's great. Either way, this is a post-interview issue.

Most departments with which I have been associated have been very flexible about start dates. If a candidate has an opportunity that will help them launch their research program once they arrive, that's seen as a good thing and the faculty and administration are supportive of this.

Should you mention marital status and/or kids in an interview?

Much has been written about this, here and elsewhere. In fact, there was something about it in The Chronicle of Higher Education just this week. A decade ago, the answer was a definite No. It is illegal for you to be asked, and there was no benefit (and perhaps even a penalty) for mentioning such things, especially for women.

Today the answer is still No, but there is a but.. You don't have to mention anything about this and you still can't be asked, but in some cases universities are trying to be proactive (in a good way) to increase their chances of getting their top choices in searches.

How do you know if you are interviewing at a university that wants to help new faculty with families, e.g. by helping spouses find jobs (academic or not) and parents find daycare? Universities that want to help, not penalize, candidates whose job decisions involve (or may eventually involve) family issues may schedule a meeting between the candidate and a human resources counselor who provides the same information to all candidates (so the candidate doesn't have to reveal any personal information). Or you may find some information online about a university's policies about hiring academic couples or the availability of daycare on or near campus, so you get the information you need but don't have to ask anyone during your interview. You may also feel comfortable talking to certain faculty who have dealt with similar issues.

Whatever the case, you don't have to mention anything about your personal situation during your interview. It is not lying and it is not being unfair to the department to mention Dr. Spouse only once you get an offer.

If you want to talk freely about all this during your interview, you can do that. I don't mind being asked for advice about these kinds of issues by interviewees, although I prefer if those kinds of conversations happen after we have talked about Science and other research-related issues for a while first. Whatever your priorities are re. career and family, you are being evaluated for your research and teaching potential.


Tomorrow's topic: During a search, how do faculty decide which candidate they prefer? I will describe my personal approach to this.

Tentative topic for Friday: Once you've got a tenure-track or tenured position, what are some of the issues related to searching for and interviewing for other academic positions at another institution?


Read More >>

Interviewing Info II

When interviewing for a faculty position, when do you bring up the issue of $$$? Do you bring up the issue of $$$?

In every interview I have had, the department chair or some other administrator such as a dean of some sort brought up the topic of money: salary and start-up. I never had to figure out the best time to ask about money; this is the responsibility of the administrators.

If for some reason you interview at a place that does not proactively mention salary or start-up and these things are critical to you at this stage -- i.e., before an offer -- then perhaps the chair or another administrator will at some point ask if you have any questions, and then you can ask the money questions. In this case, I would start with very general questions -- What is the likely starting salary? Is this a good time to discuss start-up issues?

At an interview for a faculty position in Science, I think the most important money issue that the candidate needs to think about in advance is start-up costs. I don't know about other fields, but in Science, start-up costs are so central to any hire that the topic is a normal part of an interview meeting with the chair ± deans.

Therefore, by the time you go to an interview, you should have a pretty good idea of what you want/need in terms of equipment, space, personnel, and other items that can be added to the start-up package. Know what you want and what it will cost. You may not know a final number -- e.g., setting up a lab may require some renovations, and it is up to the administrators to come up with the relevant sum for that -- but you should know an approximate amount for the things you can determine, and you should have an idea of how much space you will need.

You might want to ask around to find out what other people in your field have included in their start-up packages besides the obvious items of equipment.

I used to prepare a dream-estimate and a bare-bones estimate, and I adjusted these as I acquired more information during the interview about availability of certain shared facilities and space issues. If you get an offer, you aren't locked into the number you gave at the interview, but it's good if you at least get the order of magnitude right.

Other financial details might be more appropriate for discussion if you get an offer, although you could do some research into these issues so that you are well informed. I know that different people have different priorities, but I always think it is strange when a candidate asks about retirement benefits and moving expenses and real estate prices and so on. If you get an offer, by all means ask away, but these questions can wait (and some of it you can figure out yourself).

I realize that $$ issues can be stressful, but this should not be a major focus of anxiety at an interview. My advice to interviewees is to focus on the talks and personal interactions and, although you should certainly be well prepared to discuss your start-up requirements, don't worry that you're failing some sort of interview test if you don't know exactly what to say/when about the financial side of faculty hires.

Tomorrow: There are other resources that can answer the common and most basic questions about interviewing for a faculty position, but here's a chance to ask about more random issues that you might hesitate to ask someone you know. I have a few things lined up for tomorrow's post, but feel free to leave a comment with additional questions of the unconventional sort.
Read More >>

Open Laboratory: The Best Writing on Science Blogs 2009 Edition

With the decline of science journalism and just good science writing in traditional media altogether, someone hatched the idea to pluck out the best science writing online and put it into a printed book. In 2006, a community of science bloggers, many from the SEED sponsored collective known as ScienceBlogs put words to action and the first anthology of blog posts showcasing the quality and diversity of writing on science blogs was created and it was named Open Laboratory: The Best Writing on Science Blogs.

I submitted two essays and one was selected by a panel of judges for Open Laboratory 2009, an anthology of the best science blogging for the year. Only 50 posts were selected per year and I am told it was a very competitive selection process, with an unprecedented 760 entries submitted this year. Whew, that was some very, very stiff competition and the selected works are amazing in range and topical diversity. I am indeed head-over-heels excited to have been selected, thanks Scicurious (edition editor), Bora (anthology editor), and Open Lab judges (referees). The submissions will be sent off to the publishers and available to buy. The 2006, 2007, and 2008 editions are available to purchase, and the 2009 version will be available later this spring.














My blog post “The Rightful Place of Science in Society and the African-American Community”, originally posted at YBPGuide and also published in the 2009 Black History Month edition of the St. Louis American weekly newspaper. Below is the essay, with revisions for the upcoming 2009 Open Laboratory Anthology.

*******
In President Barack Obama’s Inauguration Speech on January 20, 2009, he vowed “to restore science to its rightful place” in society. Wow, that fills me with an excitement and eagerness to do and share science more than before, particularly to audiences that have long been under-represented in science. I ask myself, “What is science’s rightful place in society? Furthermore, what place should science have in the African-American community?”

There has been a long and understandably uneasy relationship between the Black Community and Science. Being regarded as less-than-human by other groups has put many of our fore-parents in harm’s way. I could speak volumes about unethical medical research and heartless medical providers; acknowledging the pain of the past is important. However, in order to move forward me must also accept that “this is a new day”, as Obama declared. It is time to restore Science – the offspring of Education and Intellectualism – to its rightful place in the African-American community.

The rightful place of science in our society and in the African-American community is within us. Science rightfully belongs to us, the people. It is not some mysterious activity done by others. In fact, many of the greatest scientists of all time came are also African-American: Dr. Charles H. Turner – Zoologist, Dr. Edward Bouchet – Physicist & the first Black American to earn a Ph.D., George Washington Carver – Agriculture Scientist, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson – Astrophysicist & Director of the Hayden Planetarium, Dr. Mae Jemison – Physician & NASA Astronaut, Dr. Ian Smith - Physician, Dr. Shirley Jackson – Nuclear Physicist & President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Dr. James Gates - Physicist, Dr. Shirley Malcolm – Ecologist & Head, Education and Human Resources of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. Maydianne Andrade – Behavioral Ecologist.

In order to restore science to its rightful place, we must first acknowledge what science is. Science is a pursuit of knowledge. It drives us to question, to critique, to hypothesize, to measure, to evaluate, to interpret, and to propose solutions to the most pressing needs of our communities. It is an exercise of intellect, discipline and curiosity that compels us to want to understand our world and to make it better. Science is simply information about our world, our environment, and our health.

Science is the handiest of tools in our arsenal against discrimination, poverty, hunger, socio-economic disparity and environmental injustice. People’s lives are impacted by information, and failing to comprehend information can be very detrimental. Many have paid the price of ignorance and misinformation. I have personally witnessed the heartbreaking consequences of scientific illiteracy within the African-American community, such as individuals deciding to forgo life-saving medical procedures, not following a doctor’s health advice, or moving into environmentally hazardous buildings. Many people have confused superstition as fact and shared false information about health or medical issues. We come to depend heavily on the advice of well-spoken, sometimes well-meaning celebrities and nationally-syndicated radio personalities. They share information that they believe to be true, but they are often under-informed.

Restoring science to its rightful place requires a dedication for every single citizen to become scientifically literate, to understand science, and use it to enhance our lives. Moreover, this restoration must include people who have been under-served and under-represented in science for too long. One way to achieve this is to integrate science into our everyday lives. One barrier to this is the fact that many of our social circles do not include scientists or doctors so we have no one to call when questions arise. Imagine how much more informed we would be if more people had access these experts. How much better would our lives be if science were a part of the decisions we made about our health, our children, and our environment?
The rightful place of science is in the social commentary of popular speakers, in our day-to-day dialogue with friends and family, at our dinner table, happy hour gatherings, within the banter of men in barber shops and among the chatter of ladies in hair salons. It is time to restore science in the African-American Community.
Read More >>

Views on Interviews

It is the season of Interviews in academia. Some of my former students and postdocs are on the interview trail (some with success already; very exciting), and I have recently received several requests for a post on the topic of interviewing for a faculty position.

It's been a long time since I experienced an entry-level type interview for a faculty position as an interviewee, and all my recent experiences with interviews involve my being on The Other Side as a professor, although I have gleaned bits of information from grad students and postdocs who have participated in interviews. My opinions are of course limited by my experiences and by the conventions of my academic field and academic homes, but I trust that commenters can supplement the information and views I provide to give a more complete picture of the Interview process.

Topics were selected based on specific questions in the e-mails I received recently. Today I will start with the following, with more to come in the near future:

What do you say/ask as an interviewee when you meet with the students?

Background information: Many interviews involve a meeting, perhaps over lunch, between the candidate and graduate and/or undergraduate students. These students may be selected specifically to meet with the candidate or there may be an open invitation for any student to stop by at a certain time and meet the candidate. If such an event is not on the interview schedule, perhaps there will be some other chance for talking with students in smaller groups or individually.

If there is no scheduled interaction with students, this might tell you something about a department's culture/priorities and that may or may not be useful information. I had a few interviews that seemed to lack a scheduled meeting with students, so in each case I asked about it. Sometimes the answer was "There's no time for that" and sometimes it was "We can arrange that; thanks for mentioning it."

If there is an organized meeting with students, chances are they have a set of questions that they ask each candidate.

Some of the general questions are quite predictable: What courses will you teach? Do you want to advise a lot of students or have a small group? In some science/engineering fields at a university, a typical question is whether you will be setting up a lab. And some students may ask: Why do you want this job? Why do you want to come here?

At most of the universities with which I have been associated, grad students have been involved to some extent in searches/interviews. In many cases, the top choice of the grad student population as a whole has coincided with the majority view of the faculty, but in some cases it hasn't.

When there is a discrepancy between faculty and grad opinion, a possible reason is that a candidate was patronizing to the grad students. In general, I have found that grad students as a group are very hostile about the prospect of hiring a candidate, however awesome as a researcher, who is condescending and/or visibly bored/uninterested in talking with students. When you are interviewing, even if you are concerned that your extreme youth (or, at least, youthful appearance) might make you seem like a student yourself and you want to take steps to distinguish yourself from the students, an extremely bad strategy is to be patronizing.

The candidate can also ask the students questions. It is good to have thought about some of these, in case there is a lull in the conversation (general advice that also applies to other parts of the interview process). These questions don't all have to be about the department and faculty; grad students are scholars who may be working on interesting things. Don't spend the whole meeting having a detailed conversation with a few students who happen to know something about your specific field of expertise, but perhaps you can have a general conversation about research topics of mutual interest. What is exciting in the field? What kinds of careers do the students want to have? Do they feel well prepared?

There are also things a candidate should not ask students. It is certainly legitimate to ask the students some general questions about the culture of the department, e.g. what do the students consider to be important issues in the department and university in terms of faculty-grad interactions? Or, what are their views on the position for which you are interviewing? This should not, however, devolve into digging for departmental gossip about who hates whom and who is a colossal jerk and who is insane. Keep the tone professional even if you want to know these things.

The meeting with the grad student can be one of the more interesting and enjoyable parts of the interview. Perhaps the grad students have a vote in the decision and perhaps they don't, but either way they are typically very interested in being involved in the process, are sincerely interested in meeting you, and can give you a good general sense for the department culture and atmosphere.

The best preparation is to participate in some of these meet-the-candidate sessions as a graduate student and get an idea for what these are like, or, if that's not possible to do before you have an interview of your own, you can ask someone who has been to a recent interview for additional examples of questions that may be specific to your field. And possibly there will be some additional useful suggestions in the comments to this post..
Read More >>

Selected readings 1/24/10

Interesting reading and news items.

These items are also bookmarked at my Diigo account.


Full Speed Ahead
Physical forces acting in and around cells are fast—and making waves in the world of molecular biology. [The Scientist, 12/1/09]

24 Questions for Elementary Physics
One of the motivating ideas that was mentioned more than once was the famous list of important problems proposed by David Hilbert in 1900. These were Hilbert’s personal idea of what math problems were important but solvable over the next 100 years, and his ideas turned out to be relatively influential within twentieth-century mathematics. Our conference, 110 years later and in physics rather than math, was encouraged to think along similarly grandiose lines. [Cosmic Variance, 1/15/10]

Superior Super Earths
Super Earths are named for their size, but these planets - which range from about 2 to 10 Earth masses - could be superior to the Earth when it comes to sustaining life. They could also provide an answer to the ‘Fermi Paradox’: Why haven’t we been visited by aliens? [Physorg.com, 11/30/09]

Super Earths May Be Superior at Fostering Life
Rocky planets found so far are actually more massive than our own. Dimitar Sasselov, professor of astronomy at Harvard University, coined the term "Super-Earths" to reflect their mass rather than any superior qualities. But Sasselov says that these planets – which range from about 2 to 10 Earth masses – could be superior to the Earth when it comes to sustaining life. [Space.com, 12/1/09]

Believers' inferences about God's beliefs are uniquely egocentric
Religious people tend to use their own beliefs as a guide in thinking about what God believes, but are less constrained when reasoning about other people's beliefs, according to new study published in the Nov. 30 early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Physorg.com, 11/30/09]

What Is the Meaning of 'One' Plant or Animal?
High cooperation and low conflict between components, from the genetic level on up, give a living thing its "organismality," whether that thing is an animal, a plant, a bacteria -- or a colony. [ScienceDaily, 12/2/09]

Double Sunsets May be Common, But Twin-Star Setups Still Mysterious
The Earth may orbit around a single star, but most stars like our sun are binaries — two stars orbiting each other as a pair. In fact there are many three-star triple systems, even going up perhaps as high as seven-star — or septuplet — systems. Although astronomers once thought these systems might not easily support planets, worlds with multiple sunsets might actually prove common. [Space.com, 1/18/10]

European space missions given cost warning
Europe's scientists have presented the six dream space missions they would like to fly before 2020. The concepts ranged from a quest to map the "dark" components shaping the cosmos, to a plan to find far-off planets that most resemble Earth. [BBC News, 12/2/09]

Quantum computer simulates hydrogen molecule just right
Groups at Harvard and the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, have designed and built a computer that hews closely to these specs. It is a quantum computer, as Feynman forecast. And it is the first quantum computer to simulate and calculate the behavior of an atomic, quantum system. [Science News, 1/22/10]

A tale of two qubits: how quantum computers work
Quantum information is the physics of knowledge. To be more specific, the field of quantum information studies the implications that quantum mechanics has on the fundamental nature of information. By studying this relationship between quantum theory and information, it is possible to design a new type of computer—a quantum computer. [Nobel Intent, 1/18/10]

Supernova winds blow galaxies into shape
New computer simulations show that winds generated by supernovas, which are the explosions of massive stars, can push stars out from the center of a dwarf galaxy. This simulation of supernova winds redistributes both ordinary matter and invisible dark matter in a way that almost perfectly matches observations of the way matter is distributed in actual dwarf galaxies. [Science News, 1/13/10]

Fermi’s excellent adventure
Since its launch in June 2008, the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has shed light on some of the brightest, most explosive events in the universe and opened tantalizing windows into dark matter and the nature of space-time. [Symmetry, 12/1/09]

The Maverick Bacterium
Whether it’s powering through the cytoplasm leaving a trail of polymerized actin, activating an arsenal of virulence factors through changes in RNA structure, or storing the code for RNA transcripts on the wrong side of DNA, Listeria makes up its own rules for survival. [The Scientist, 1/1/10]


RSS access:
Blog posts labeled "readings"
Items saved at Diigo
Read More >>

Analytical Writing

The GRE contains an "Analytical Writing" section that is supposed to be a good indicator of .. something. But what? This is what I would like to know.

Is the score relevant to how well a student might do with some important aspects of graduate school? I took the GRE long before the advent of the Analytical Writing (AW) component, so I don't have any firsthand experience with it. I've read some of the available materials about what it is and how it is graded, and all of my recent graduate students have taken the AW exam, but I don't really know what the score means, if anything.

From what I've seen, the GRE in general does not predict whether a student will do well in research. This is not news to many (most?) people. The Quantitative score does tend to predict how a student will do in quantitative courses, but that may or may not correspond to whether a student can apply quantitative techniques in research. I've advised students with perfect Q scores and apparently no ability to think about science in a quantitative way or apply quantitative skills to research. I've advised students with lower Q scores who were quite talented at quantitative research applications.

Also based on personal experience advising students, I surmise that the Verbal score seems to indicate something about the complexity of an individual's vocabulary, but doesn't predict anything about reading/writing ability. Maybe that's where the AW exam comes in, but I still don't know what the score really means.

An exam involving writing and text analysis should test some skills that we want a grad student to have, but I have increasingly encountered extremely smart and creative students who write well and have no problem with reading comprehension but who have low AW scores, and students with high AW scores who struggle with writing and synthesizing essential points from what they read.

The conclusion that some smart students take tests well and some don't seems inevitable; this is of course one of the oft-proposed interpretations of student performance on standardized exams that are taken with strict time limits.

I don't think the GRE scores are totally meaningless. I would be very reluctant to admit a grad student with low scores on one or more of the GRE exam components unless the low scores were convincingly different from the rest of the academic record.

I have recently been gazing at applications with AW scores ranging from 3 to 6, and in many cases there seems to be no correlation between the AW score and the rest of the application, even for students for whom English is the first language. I am willing to believe that a 6 (out of 6) means the student is a good writer, just as I am willing to believe that a student with across-the-board good GREs is smart, but then there are all the students with good-but-not-great scores. I have seen no evidence that a student with an AW score of 5 (or even lower) is necessarily less-great at the things supposedly tested by this part of the exam.

In any case, we get these scores as part of grad applications, we stare at them, we try to figure out what they might mean, we consider them in the context of the entire application, and then we make our best guess in the admissions process based on the entire file.
Read More >>

Guide to Urban Ecology

Today, was a great day. It all started last week when I posted my New Year's Resolutions which included speaking and presenting more with my pending graduation. Later that day I recieved an email from the St. Louis Academy of Science Speaker Series Director. She said she had seen my Science Matters interview on the local PBS station and asked if I would speak at an upcoming event for middle schoolers. The program is called Green Your Future - a discussion about eco-related jobs. I spoke to the students about urban ecology.

It was my very first time speaking to a general audience group on request. It was also the first time I gave my Urban Science Adventures! © schpeel to a live audience. The 7th graders from the St. Louis Public Schools were great. They were attentive and asked lots of questions. Great questions. And they offered several of their own Urban Science Adventures! © stories. Many of the kids had their own sightings of urban wildlife including opossums (both roadkill and alive), rabbits, squirrels, and hawks. One student even saw a porcupine once! I'm jealous. I'm a mammalogist and I've never seen a porcupine!

I presented a short presentation that included photos of urban wildlife scences I've captured right here in St. Louis. The kids were really fascinated by by my hands....not really. But I had 2 classrooms of all boys who were impressed that I was holding a frog, a bird and stood close enough to various types of bugs to photograph them. I capped things off by encouraging them to explore and discover nature in urban areas.

I think shooting local scenes was important. A couple of kids knew this spot exactly.

I love outreach. I really do. It was a blast. I'll be traveling this semester - searching for jobs, attending meetings, connecting with fellow bloggers (science/nature/blogging while brown) and outdoor enthusiasts. I've booked one date already to give a formal talk (the dissertation presentation talk). I'm willing to do travel and do some two-fer presentations - the official science talk and the science outreach presentation.

Also, check out my KETC Science Matters video and let me know what you think.

Thanks everyone for the support and encouragement.

DNLee
Demystifying nature, letting everyone experience
Read More >>

You're the Best

Years ago, a friend of mine had a highly unsuccessful interview for a faculty position. According to the legend, the department chair, who had had the same adviser as the candidate, was upset that their mutual adviser had written in the reference letter that the candidate was the best graduate student he had ever advised. This was humiliating for the not-best professor and he did not support hiring the candidate.

Perhaps I am naive, but I don't believe that the wounded ego of one professor would be enough to sink someone's chances at a job if there weren't other reasons for other faculty to not prefer this particular candidate. The reasons might be good ones or bad ones, but I think there must have been other reasons. I also think in this case that it was true that the candidate was indeed the best graduate student of that adviser; the years since the fateful interview have demonstrated this well.

It's likely that the adviser sent the same letter to every institution to which the candidate applied and did not modify it out of consideration for his former student who was on the faculty at one of these places. Should the adviser have worded the letter in a different way for that particular institution? Or was he was correct to state his frank opinion, which was surely accurate and not a case in which every one of his students was the best?

I was recently thinking about this incident for two reasons:

(1) I have been writing reference letters for graduate students, and I always think about who is likely to read my letter -- anyone I know? anyone my students know? Does it matter in terms of what I write in the letter, or at least how I express my opinions?

and

(2) I just read a reference letter for an undergraduate student applying to graduate school at my institution. We went to the same college and had the same professor for a particular class, albeit many (many) years apart. Although the applicant is not the best student this professor ever taught, she is very close to the best, who is clearly indicated as a recent student (i.e., not me).

I laughed when I read the letter that states (indirectly) that I was not the best student of that professor. For one thing, I knew that. I did well in his course, but I did not excel.

Also, I was responsible for a practical joke that my class played on this professor and that he still seems to remember when I encounter him at conferences. When my friends and I graduated, he told us that he would miss us, but not too much.

His letter for the almost-best applicant was obviously a form letter sent to all departments to which the applicant was applying, but even if it had not been, this wouldn't have mattered in this case. The applicant is impressive and my ego has weathered the blow (this time).
Read More >>

Wordless Wednesday: Chickory, the wild urban herb

Chickory is an edible plant. In fact, it has been used as a coffee substitute for decades. I think the flower is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen. Before moving to St. Louis, I can't recall ever seeing such a plant before down south. Chickory can grow anywhere. It is a hardy plant and very tolerant of poor soils. In fact, this patch of Chickory flowers were growing out of asphalt from an old parking lot of a closed down factory in North St. Louis.



Read More >>