litdawg
Ambidextrous Humanities Player
Senior member
Posts: 783
God & the CHE fora help those who help themselves.
|
 |
« Reply #345 on: November 09, 2011, 11:11:07 AM » |
|
Includes reason for leaving ?! I've been out of the application loop for a while, but since when did that go on a CV? How do you politely explain your reasons for leaving? Stating the reason for leaving a job doesn't bother me. I already have to state that on every official application, so I suppose I can list the reason briefly in one sentence following the employment dates on my resume and CV. "Professional advancement" covers a host of situations and is always a good reason for leaving a job. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The heart of the wise man is tranquil. Chuang Tzu
|
|
|
agnes_ever
New member
Posts: 5
|
|
« Reply #346 on: February 18, 2012, 07:22:12 PM » |
|
I don't know if this thread is still alive, but here's a question. We are currently doing a search in a STEM field, and I've noticed that several applicants who are currently postdocs do something odd on their CVs. Under a "funding" or "grants" section, they will list the large NSF grant they are currently working on. The odd thing is that the applicants aren't actually co-PIs on the grant. I realize that some institutions do not allow their postdocs to be co-PIs even if the postdocs contributed to writing the grant. Still, to me this comes across as an attempt to claim credit where little if any is due. What do you all think of this practice?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mleok
|
|
« Reply #347 on: February 18, 2012, 07:33:14 PM » |
|
I don't know if this thread is still alive, but here's a question. We are currently doing a search in a STEM field, and I've noticed that several applicants who are currently postdocs do something odd on their CVs. Under a "funding" or "grants" section, they will list the large NSF grant they are currently working on. The odd thing is that the applicants aren't actually co-PIs on the grant. I realize that some institutions do not allow their postdocs to be co-PIs even if the postdocs contributed to writing the grant. Still, to me this comes across as an attempt to claim credit where little if any is due. What do you all think of this practice?
I've seen this on graduate student CVs as well, and I think it's just intended to indicate the source of the funding that supports their postdoc or GRA. If that is the intent, I would list the PI and the grant title, and funding agency, but not include the amount. It does seem a bit strange when the amount is included, and one isn't a PI or co-PI. If a postdoc was involved in writing the grant, then this is something that is best addressed in the reference letters. This is what I do for my postdocs when they contribute significantly to a submitted/funded grant proposal. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
prof_j
New member
Posts: 9
|
|
« Reply #348 on: February 18, 2012, 07:59:36 PM » |
|
... Under a "funding" or "grants" section, they will list the large NSF grant they are currently working on. The odd thing is that the applicants aren't actually co-PIs on the grant. ...
In my opinion this is ridiculous. I also am in a STEM field, and I think appropriate "funding" awards would typically be fellowships or other external funding where the adviser was not the PI/author. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mleok
|
|
« Reply #349 on: February 18, 2012, 10:20:17 PM » |
|
It does come across as naive, and it wouldn't impress me, but it wouldn't be a real deal breaker (in itself) either. But yes, this section should only be for awards, fellowships, and grants won by the actual applicant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bacardiandlime
Ninja
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 3,257
That makes me more gangster than you
|
|
« Reply #350 on: February 19, 2012, 02:56:10 AM » |
|
People in the humanities: Don't list every entry you wrote for the same encyclopedia as separate "peer-reviewed publications".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
YOU ARE NASTY
Go jump in lake!
|
|
|
|
data5112
|
|
« Reply #351 on: February 19, 2012, 01:02:57 PM » |
|
... Under a "funding" or "grants" section, they will list the large NSF grant they are currently working on. The odd thing is that the applicants aren't actually co-PIs on the grant. ...
In my opinion this is ridiculous. +1 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
shamu
|
|
« Reply #352 on: February 19, 2012, 02:35:25 PM » |
|
Still, to me this comes across as an attempt to claim credit where little if any is due. What do you all think of this practice?
I agree with you and others. Someone hired on the grant after it was funded should not take credit for conceptualizing and landing it. Only if the student wrote the grant or contributed to its conception in a tangible way before it was awarded could s/he claim credit. For example, and NIH F32 or F31 could be listed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bcohlan1
limericked his way to being a
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 1,050
EPIC BEER
|
|
« Reply #353 on: February 21, 2012, 05:43:04 PM » |
|
"I'm an applican, not an applican't."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Basically the moral of the story is that bcohlan1 is talking out of his ass again.
|
|
|
|
betterslac
|
|
« Reply #354 on: February 21, 2012, 07:32:15 PM » |
|
"I'm an applican, not an applican't."
Ha, that's a good one. It reminds me of the idiot consultant my former slac brought in, who insisted that there is proof that all people have two sides to their personalities because the word "individual" contains the term "dual" within it. Uh, no. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pathogen
|
|
« Reply #355 on: April 24, 2012, 08:52:09 PM » |
|
Listing yourself as editor and writer at a publication which is.......your blog.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
octoprof
Member-Moderator
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 32,746
Dérailleur-in-Chief (nominee)
|
|
« Reply #356 on: April 24, 2012, 09:40:19 PM » |
|
Listing yourself as editor and writer at a publication which is.......your blog.
Well, it's true... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to each other; it will unriddle many riddles; it will make clear and simple many things... Mark Twain
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. Professor Dumbledore
|
|
|
|
frogfactory
|
|
« Reply #357 on: April 24, 2012, 10:26:30 PM » |
|
Listing yourself as editor and writer at a publication which is.......your blog.
Maybe if you're Carl Zimmer or a blogger of that sort of stature that might fly? Otherwise... eh. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
At the end of the day, sometimes you just have to masturbate in the bathroom.
|
|
|
balefulregardss
Imperfect Uncertainty: Guardian of indecision is one
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 1,487
The magical seagull regards you balefully /\o/\
|
|
« Reply #358 on: April 24, 2012, 10:40:03 PM » |
|
Listing yourself as editor and writer at a publication which is.......your blog.
Maybe if you're Carl Zimmer or a blogger of that sort of stature that might fly? Otherwise... eh. I've been syndicated by various larger organizations ( and even have a few award type things), but I still don't list it on my academic CV |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Kick, Push, Kick, Push, Kick, Push, Kick, Push and Coast....
|
|
|
suomynona
Junior member
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #359 on: April 25, 2012, 06:20:08 AM » |
|
On the much-discussed topic of how to list conference presentations without being obnoxious, some thoughs and questions (applicant on the market):
I like to present frequently (maybe 3 times a year) at conferences because conference papers and feedback are usually the impetus for a fuller journal article, so a conference is a motivating start for me on a new topic. I'm not someone who presents the same paper in different forms at different conferences, and I think this is pretty evident to someone reading my conference section of the CV. I write new papers for every conference. I try to go to 1 major conference ('that counts') each year, but get value out of 1-2 other regional or local conferences. Should I keep 2 CVs, one as an archive with everything on it and another that I send out for applications with just the big conferences?
Isnt it valuable to see that even if an applicant has presented at small conferences, they've indicated a paper title or topic that gives (I would think) a substantive sense of what they've been working on, potential topics for teaching and research, new article ideas, etc.? When I think about what to present at a conference, I usually think 'what can I investigate here that will round out an aspect of my field that I haven't written about or studied elsewhere?'
Apart from seminar papers for course credit, universities sometimes have faculty seminar series for which external scholars are invited to present. If we present at one of these, is it OK to list? In some cases it's a real honor to speak as the only grad. student on the semester program between bigshot 1 and bigshot 2.
I tend to list all of these things, though I carefully divide them such that big conferences are in a separate subcategory from small conferences and faculty seminars. Is this too confusing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
