next »

[cecil]

Hi everyone...

A bit of background.  I received my PhD in the social sciences in 2007 and spent the 2007-2008 academic year as a VAP at a small regional university (lots of teaching, didn't get any research done).  Last spring I accepted a research scientist position at a large (R1) university in a beautiful part of the country.  I would ultimately like to get a tenure track position and while I had thought about applying this fall, my publication record is a bit scant, so I have been thinking I would wait one more year before going on the market.

It has recently come to my attention that the faculty member whose grants fund me may be taking a position at a top (Ivy League) university.  Although the details are uncertain, it sounds like it would be possible for me to either stay where I am or follow to the new university.

What I'm wondering is what the pros and cons might be from a career perspective.  The new school definitely has a great reputation (by most accounts it would be considered number 1 in my field), but I'm not sure how much that matters for a person in my position (it isn't like I'm going to be a professor there).  In terms of fit, the faculty in my current department are a better fit for my research interests and are all very famous, but there are also potential collaborators at the new university...and my interests are closely aligned with the faculty member who funds me.

As far as non-career considerations, there's nothing too compelling either way.  Both schools are in desirable locations.  I don't love moving, but wouldn't particularly mind either.  I'm in a relationship, but my partner is pretty willing to either stay or go.

Thanks for any thoughts!

[msparticularity]

Where would you be most likely to get publications out? Given your interest in pursuing TT employment, and the relative equality of the situations from your perspective, I think this has to be your litmus test.

While it would make total sense to follow the person who funds you, there can also be substantial downtime while a new lab/research facility gets set up in a new location. Also, of course, you'd have to move yourself, with all of the attendant disruption. If you already have publications together in the pipeline, though, it might work best to go with this person so you can get these finished and submitted.

Conversely, though, if your funder leaves, are you certain you'll be able to stay in a secure position? Having to worry constantly can pull focus from writing, for sure!

[cecil]

Thanks for your thoughts msparticularity. 

I guess my main question is how much the association with super famous school is helpful.  Current department is very good, but school itself is not as impressive.  I imagine my publication record will be pretty much the same at either place.  I currently have one manuscript under review, another that is written and in need of some revision before submitting, and another that has a very rough draft.  I'm also starting up some new research with my sponsoring faculty member and we're beginning to write a paper together on some other research.

There is a good chance that funding will be available for another couple of years (though that's not certain).

[polly_mer]

I agree with MsParticularity that you seem to be asking the wrong questions.

A more important consideration is whether you can get your own funding and not be dependent on someone else's funding.  In addition to publications, that's a key factor in whether you will get a TT job at a research school.  Staying where you are and raising your own funding may be much more impressive to a search committee than being affiliated with a big name school as someone's underling.

[cecil]

With respect, polly_mer, my question is not "wrong" because it is the one that I'm wondering about.

If I was unclear, let me attempt to re-phrase.

*All things being equal*, is there an advantage to being an "underling" at a number one school that makes the hassle of moving worthwhile?

All things being equal means that I realize the relative importance of publications and grant funding (though many people in my field get faculty positions without ever having received grant funding), but I do not expect the likelihood of publications or grant funding to vary as a function of geographic location.

[msparticularity]

I do not expect the likelihood of publications or grant funding to vary as a function of geographic location.

Maybe not--but my point is that your publications could vary as a function of having to move, or working with a PI who has had to move.

And on your concern about whether there is "name brand value" to the more prestigious school that would benefit you, I think the consensus here is that this is far, far less important than the quality and quantity of your publications. You keep repeating "all other things being equal,"  but what I think all of us keep trying to reiterate that assuming this is a pretty big step.

[sciencephd]

If there is a major difference in the prestige of the institutions, and you are talking about moving to an ivy, then of course it makes a significant difference to your future career prospects.  HELLO !

[msparticularity]

If there is a major difference in the prestige of the institutions, and you are talking about moving to an ivy, then of course it makes a significant difference to your future career prospects.  HELLO !

I think it may be more nuanced than that in this case. Going to an Ivy as part of a "package deal" with a senior faculty member--as opposed to getting hired there on one's own--and then not producing a good quantity of published research is NOT going to make a significant improvement to future career prospects. It would do the opposite, in fact. This is the point many of us are trying to make.

[sciencephd]

If there is a major difference in the prestige of the institutions, and you are talking about moving to an ivy, then of course it makes a significant difference to your future career prospects.  HELLO !

I think it may be more nuanced than that in this case. Going to an Ivy as part of a "package deal" with a senior faculty member--as opposed to getting hired there on one's own--and then not producing a good quantity of published research is NOT going to make a significant improvement to future career prospects. It would do the opposite, in fact. This is the point many of us are trying to make.

Why the suggestion or assumption of "not producing a good quantitity of published research" at the new institution ?  I see nothing to support this.  Why, exactly, are many of you trying to make such a point ?

[conjugate]

If there is a major difference in the prestige of the institutions, and you are talking about moving to an ivy, then of course it makes a significant difference to your future career prospects.  HELLO !

I think it may be more nuanced than that in this case. Going to an Ivy as part of a "package deal" with a senior faculty member--as opposed to getting hired there on one's own--and then not producing a good quantity of published research is NOT going to make a significant improvement to future career prospects. It would do the opposite, in fact. This is the point many of us are trying to make.

Why the suggestion or assumption of "not producing a good quantitity of published research" at the new institution ?  I see nothing to support this.  Why, exactly, are many of you trying to make such a point ?

It is not an assumption; it is a possibility.  Whether the possibility is likely or not is something the OP must figure out, as we don't know the specifics.  It's just a warning that this is something to be taken into consideration.  If OP has the makings of a big fish, then by all means go to a big pond; if OP is a small or medium fish, then better to stay in the smaller pond and stand out.  I don't read what's been posted as making assumptions about "fish size," merely enumerating possibilities.  Or so I read MsParticularity's post.  Am I in error?

[msparticularity]

If there is a major difference in the prestige of the institutions, and you are talking about moving to an ivy, then of course it makes a significant difference to your future career prospects.  HELLO !

I think it may be more nuanced than that in this case. Going to an Ivy as part of a "package deal" with a senior faculty member--as opposed to getting hired there on one's own--and then not producing a good quantity of published research is NOT going to make a significant improvement to future career prospects. It would do the opposite, in fact. This is the point many of us are trying to make.

Why the suggestion or assumption of "not producing a good quantitity of published research" at the new institution ?  I see nothing to support this.  Why, exactly, are many of you trying to make such a point ?

It is not an assumption; it is a possibility.  Whether the possibility is likely or not is something the OP must figure out, as we don't know the specifics.  It's just a warning that this is something to be taken into consideration.  If OP has the makings of a big fish, then by all means go to a big pond; if OP is a small or medium fish, then better to stay in the smaller pond and stand out.  I don't read what's been posted as making assumptions about "fish size," merely enumerating possibilities.  Or so I read MsParticularity's post.  Am I in error?

Yup--that's what I had in mind. There have been a fair number of posts over the years about faculty members moving to new institutions, and then taking a surprisingly (to themselves and their colleagues) long time to really get up and rolling again with their research. Moving is disruptive and difficult. Getting set up to do research again in a new place can be disruptive and difficult. Working with someone else who is struggling to recover from/cope with a recent move can be...well you get the picture. :)

[polly_mer]

If there is a major difference in the prestige of the institutions, and you are talking about moving to an ivy, then of course it makes a significant difference to your future career prospects.  HELLO !

I think it may be more nuanced than that in this case. Going to an Ivy as part of a "package deal" with a senior faculty member--as opposed to getting hired there on one's own--and then not producing a good quantity of published research is NOT going to make a significant improvement to future career prospects. It would do the opposite, in fact. This is the point many of us are trying to make.

Why the suggestion or assumption of "not producing a good quantitity of published research" at the new institution ?  I see nothing to support this.  Why, exactly, are many of you trying to make such a point ?

I agree that having a stable platform from which to launch one's own research and funding effort is desirable and that doing so at a top institute can be a wonderful position.  However, if that doesn't happen and instead the OP remains an underling instead of becoming a full junior colleague, then the OP will be worse off than if he had stayed put and figured out how to become self-supporting at the smaller institution.  The danger is that by following a mentor's money, one gets too comfortable and never takes that next step to becoming a fully grown researcher.  The full junior colleague has a good CV and can later leave for a good position.  The always underling risks not being able to move later.

I mention the possibility because I know people who failed to make the leap.  They are 10 to 15 years post-Ph.D. in STEM fields and have always been at good places, but they cannot run their own research because they have spent their entire careers as underlings with no projects of their own, no ability to write grants, and only a handful of publications because they never get around to writing anything up. Thus, when their mentor retires, they are in bad shape because they have never become fully grown researchers and everyone knows it.  I have observed a couple people who then had to beg for someone else to take them on as postdocs because they could not move into an appropriate level position because they did not have a CV commensurate with their academic age.  That's a big drawback that I see to following someone else's money instead of staying put and raising one's own money. 

You are correct that we have no reason to believe that the OP will fail into the always-underling category.  However, the fact that the OP is asking questions about the wrong aspects about following the advisor doesn't bode well for taking the necessary steps to become an independent researcher.

[cecil]

Thank you all for your thoughts.

Some of the assumptions that people have made are interesting, if not entirely accurate. 

My current position is at a major R1 university, where in addition to working on grant-funded research that pays me, I conduct independent research, write my own papers, and attend and present at department colloquia, brown bags, etc.  I may go on the job market this fall, but given a stable source of funding, I think I will probably wait another year until my CV is stronger so that I can continue to work on conducting research and publishing without the distraction of teaching.

As I've written in my previous posts, I don't expect that my activities or motivations will vary as a function of what university I'm at, though I agree that moving is disruptive and could potentially slow things down somewhat.

Other than the disruption of moving, I haven't really gotten much of a sense of whether to stay or go, but perhaps that is informative in itself.  My sense is that going to the #1 place is not necessarily that helpful and that staying or going probably comes down to personal choices having to do with geography, etc.

[polly_mer]

If you haven't moved your in-progress research to another institution, I think you are likely to grossly underestimate how long it takes to get your research back up and going. 

I don't even have to set up a lab, but it took three months to get all the paperwork in place for the funding, get established with my office set up (e.g., keys, phones, computer network, computer accounts, mail forwarded), and get all my books and papers back in order.  I have no teaching responsibilities.  I had no student supervision responsibilities.  I just spent weeks trying to get reestablished in a new place with the joy of discovering every half hour or so some new annoyance that would require two days of phone calls and visits to get it straightened out.  When you have an hour to listen some time, ask me about getting a library card or a phone.

[john_proctor]

If you haven't moved your in-progress research to another institution, I think you are likely to grossly underestimate how long it takes to get your research back up and going. 

I don't even have to set up a lab, but it took three months to get all the paperwork in place for the funding, get established with my office set up (e.g., keys, phones, computer network, computer accounts, mail forwarded), and get all my books and papers back in order.  I have no teaching responsibilities.  I had no student supervision responsibilities.  I just spent weeks trying to get reestablished in a new place with the joy of discovering every half hour or so some new annoyance that would require two days of phone calls and visits to get it straightened out.  When you have an hour to listen some time, ask me about getting a library card or a phone.

Absolutely.

I'm in the humanities (so, no labs) but was also teaching.  Factor in that you're entire life for six months is going to be a series of: learning the landscape, discovering resources, finding grocers and barbers and cleaners and restaurants and recreational areas and hardware stores and decentbutstillaffordable mechanics and gasoline and utilties companies and the dmv and car registration and bank accounts and telephones and parking permits and meeting locals/neighbors and ...

Seriously, it's a major disruption.  If you're up and at maximum (or even just high) productivity inside of 6 months, you should consider that wildly effective.

I think a realistic plan would be 3-6 months for being reasonably functional (and that with hard work); 6-9 months for really or highly productive days; a year or so before you're really in the groove.

Extend that appropriately with new preps, student advising, or service (which, as a new faculty, you shouldn't be subjected to, but it ain't a perfect world).