August 3, 2012, 2:19 pm
I’m currently at MathFest, and I’ll be speaking in our panel discussion on Issues for Early Career Mathematicians in Academia in a couple of hours. If you’ve been keeping up with this series on Finding Your Next Job then you know about the first half of what I’ll be speaking about. If not, then come to the session! And if you’re coming to (or went to) the session, the blog posts here will go into more detail.
Last time we looked at the importance of not being a jerk and making a commitment to act with integrity and graciousness in the upcoming search process. This time I want to bring up another issue that continues to come up for many throughout a search process: Confidentiality. Should you make your search public? Should you make it a state secret and not talk to anybody except your stakeholders? Or something in between?
In some situations there’s no need to keep a…
August 1, 2012, 7:19 am
Thanks for sticking with this series on Finding Your Next Job. I’ll probably have one or two more posts after this one before I’m done. If you’re heading to MathFest this week, this series ties in to a panel discussion on Issues for Early-Career Mathematicians in Academia that takes place on Friday at 2:30, where I’ll be speaking and leading a breakout discussion on this topic. If you’re interested and available, please stop by. Also, in case you want a one-stop shop for all the posts in this series, I have one for you: http://bit.ly/FindingYourNextJob. I’ll be adding posts to this bundle as they go up.
Last time, we talked about the importance of being creative when looking for work and exploring all options, including nontraditional ones. There’s another point to consider at this initial stage having to do with how you choose to conduct yourself during the long slog…
July 31, 2012, 8:00 am
The first two parts of this series (part 1, part 2) on Finding Your Next Job were about coming to terms with the motivations and parameters behind looking for a next job in the first place. These aren’t stressed enough in most discourses on job searching. The last thing you want is to blunder into a job search without a good idea of why you’re doing it, what you hope to accomplish, and who (besides yourself) needs to be involved.
But once you’re done with this kind of soul-searching, you have to begin. This part of the process can be just as varied as the first two parts, so rather than lay down a “how to” list, let me just share some experiences and what’s worked for me and people I know. Here I’m going to focus on one important and often-overlooked point about what sort of job you consider when you search.
For people looking for a second or subsequent job coming out…
July 30, 2012, 8:00 am
We’re continuing a series on Finding Your Next Job. In the first post, we stressed the importance of identifying your motivations and coming to terms with the why behind the search. Now we need to think about getting started. Hitting the EIMS website and beginning to compose cover letters is not the start of the job search in my opinion. That comes next. But first there are a few more things to do. Three things, in fact.
1. Determine who the stakeholders are in this upcoming search. This would be any person, other than your current colleagues, whose daily life will be altered by your move to the next job. This is a different and much smaller list than that of the people who careabout your search — hopefully there are a lot of those kinds of people, but it’s likely you have few true stakeholders. The last time I was on the market, in 2010, I identified five stakeholders other…
July 27, 2012, 9:25 am
I’ll be at MathFest next week, and one of the things I’ll be doing is participating in this panel discussion. I’ll be speaking about “Finding Your Second Job” and then leading a breakout group to discuss this issue. It’s a little funny that I’ll be speaking on this, since I’m actually on my third job right now (and I hope it will be my last one!) but I won’t let that get in the way.
Finding “the next job” in academia is a very complex issue on a number of levels. I only have 15 minutes to do my schtick in Madison and so there’s no way I can touch on all the nuances. So I’d like to take this week leading up to MathFest to blog about this issue in detail. There may be some people out there who are planning to go on the market in the fall — or wrestling with the possibility of doing so. If you can make it to MathFest, I encourage you to stop by the panel…
July 18, 2012, 9:44 am
This week I am adding to the playlist of screencasts for the inverted intro-to-proofs class I first mentioned here. There are seven chapters in the textbook we are using and my goal is to complete the screencasts for the first three of those chapters prior to the start of the semester (August 27). Yesterday I added four more videos and I am hoping to make four more tomorrow, which will get us through Chapter 1.
The four new ones focus on conditional (“if-then”) statements. I made this video as the second video in the series as a prelude to proofs, which are coming in Section 1.2 and which will remain the focus of the course throughout. Generally speaking, students coming into this course have had absolutely no exposure to proof in their background with the exception of geometry and maybe trigonometry, in which they hated proofs. Watch a part of this and see if you can figure out my …
June 11, 2012, 4:18 pm
I’m attending the American Society of Engineering Education conference and expo this week in San Antonio, and I hope to have some short blog posts from the various sessions and talks I’m attending.
This morning I attended part of a session on model-eliciting activities and the main plenary, which was titled “Keeping it Real” and focused on tying together academia and industry in engineering education. There were lots of good ideas discussed, but if there was one coherent take-away from these talks, it’s that engineers — at least the ones whose focus is on learning and teaching — are a lot further along than mathematicians in education practice.
Granted, my title here is a little overstated. I am not looking at a representative sample of engineers at this conference. These engineers are the ones who care and think the most about effective learning and teaching; I’m sure there are…
April 9, 2012, 8:00 am
What I was trying to get across in Friday’s post, Gary Stager did much more clearly in this article. In it, he recalls the time thirty years ago when Logo and BASIC were being taught in schools and kids were programming. But:
Things sped downhill when we removed “computing” from our lexicon and replaced it with “technology” (like a Pez dispenser or Thermos). We quickly degraded that meaningless term, technology, further by modifying it with IT and ICT. Once computing was officially erased from the education of young people, teachers could focus on keyboarding, chatting, looking stuff up, labeling the parts of the computer and making PowerPoint presentations about topics you don’t care about for an audience you will never meet. [...]
What kids do get to do with computers tends to be trivial and inservice of the educational status quo. Gone are the days when educational…
April 6, 2012, 2:33 pm
So let’s suppose we decide to require computer science for all students at our university. How are we going to implement that requirement? Here’s one approach that I believe could turn out to be the wrong way to do this: Set up a collection of courses, all of which count for the CS1 requirement, that are aligned to the students’ levels of technological proficiency. STEM students take a standard intro-to-programming course, liberal arts majors take a course that focuses more on office applications, and so on.
But, wait a minute, didn’t I say last time that I liked Georgia Tech’s approach, where the single CS1 requirement was satisfied by a number of different courses that are aimed at different populations? Yes, I did. But favoring a collection courses with different populations is not the same as favoring a collection with different outcomes depending on how measure, or perceive,…
April 4, 2012, 8:46 am
This US News article points out a growing interest among colleges and universities to make basic computer science a required course for all students. Georgia Tech already does this. The article points out that universities not normally considered to be science/technology-heavy are leaning this way too:
Every student at Montclair State University in New Jersey must complete a computer science in order to graduate. For most students, that course is Introduction for Computer Applications: Being Fluent with Information Technology. (Music majors take Music and Computer Technology I.)
The course is designed to teach students majoring in subjects such as fashion, dance, or art history about network security, artificial intelligence, databases, and e-commerce, says Michael Oudshoorn, chairman of the computer science department at Montclair.
“It’s not aimed at making them experts; it’s…