next »

[mother_goose]

I finished my Ph.D. last year at an Oxbridge school, and am currently a postdoc at an Ivy League school in the math department (I also work with engineers as well). I'm still quite young (24 years old) and unattached enough to be able to move around freely.

These days, I've been very stressed-out about what will happen when my current postdoc runs out in 2012 or 2013. I don't feel like I'm publishing as quickly as I should (a common sentiment, I guess). When I finish my current position, I'd like to apply for another postdoc, but it seems that a lot of the job advertisements limit the positions to "recent Ph.Ds" (generally, 2 year limit after you finish your degree).

How difficult will it for me to gain another postdoc position after my current?

Do you have any advice about my current fear of the future? I feel that I'm still very young, and by the time I finish my first postdoc, most people will have just finished their PhDs. I almost feel that I'm entitled to relax a little...

[weathered]

Yeah, I think you should relax a little. You are going faster than most and it seems like you are stressing yourself out. For people in your position, things turn out better.

[hegemony]

Whether you're publishing as much as you should is somewhat out of your hands, but whether you're writing as much as you should is within your control. Figure out how many articles (or whatever the standard of measurement is in your field) you should finish per year.  Look at some online CVs of recently hired people in positions you'd like to have and see what their production rate was. You might revise upwards just a bit, but don't overdo it and set yourself up for failure. Then figure out a working schedule that meets that goal. Then, if you're working according to that schedule, remind yourself that all extra anxiety is just free-floating worry about the necessarily unknowable future. That worry does not serve you. Divert your attention from it, or detach yourself: "There I am worrying again! Isn't it amazing what a worrywart I can be if I don't keep my grip!"  And roll your eyes at yourself.

You're in an excellent position. Most people in your field would give their eye teeth to be in such a good position. Now, don't blame yourself for worrying despite that. ("See, I'm in such a good position and still I can't relax! There must be something wrong with me!") Just let it go and turn your attention to something that's either a) productive b) fun and absorbing c) both.

[mother_goose]

Whether you're publishing as much as you should is somewhat out of your hands, but whether you're writing as much as you should is within your control.

The problem is that, in choosing my current postdoc position, I deliberately chose a location which would force me to entertain new research directions. As a result, it's taking me a lot longer to get started.

Part of my recent freakout occurred after reading Feibelman's book, A PhD is Not Enough. In particular, this ending paragraph:

Above all, during your postdoc years, work hard! You have only a short time to prove yourself. Do not slough off now. There is no time to waste. Your postdoctoral years represent the most intensely important period in determining whether you will have a career

The words, "whether you will have a career" flash, over and over, before my eyes.

If I had to describe my current position, I would say that I'm a little bit like 3-4 grad students, beginning their research careers, but rolled into one postdoc. I'm not some high-pressure cooker, publishing vast amounts of literature, the way Feibelmen describes, but rather, I'm pursuing different research projects which may, or may not pan out. Everything is too early to tell.

Most of all, I'm worried that in 2-3 years, when I apply for my second postdoc (which is likely, I suppose), I'll be rejected in favour of someone who completed their PhD more recently, or perhaps someone who didn't spread themselves so thin during their first postdoc.

[hegemony]

I don't think you should go for a second postdoc -- I think you should go for a job. Postdocs don't want people who are in the position you'll be in then; universities do. You will be at prime employability. I can't think why you'd even want a second postdoc -- only because you're assuming you wouldn't get a job? 

Is all your research of this don't-know-whether-it-will-pan-out type? You should have something surer on your plate. Turn part of your dissertation into articles, or do some spin-offs that occurred to you along the way. It's like diversifying your investments: you put some into the risky stuff, and some into the sure things.

[scampster]

Part of my recent freakout occurred after reading Feibelman's book, A PhD is Not Enough. In particular, this ending paragraph:

Above all, during your postdoc years, work hard! You have only a short time to prove yourself. Do not slough off now. There is no time to waste. Your postdoctoral years represent the most intensely important period in determining whether you will have a career

The words, "whether you will have a career" flash, over and over, before my eyes.

If I had to describe my current position, I would say that I'm a little bit like 3-4 grad students, beginning their research careers, but rolled into one postdoc. I'm not some high-pressure cooker, publishing vast amounts of literature, the way Feibelmen describes, but rather, I'm pursuing different research projects which may, or may not pan out. Everything is too early to tell.

But you are working hard, yes? Just because you don't get immediate publications, doesn't mean that before you finish your postdoc that you will not have publications. Unless you do something very similar to your graduate work, some spin-up time is expected, especially if you are the only one working on the research project (i.e. so it doesn't move forward unless you move it forward). You have only been there less than a year, right?

[mother_goose]

I can't think why you'd even want a second postdoc -- only because you're assuming you wouldn't get a job?  

Yes. Partly.

I don't think I'd be qualified to get a tenure-track at the kind of top institutions I'm aiming for (nevermind the fact that the year I finish, such appointments might not even be offered). Of course, I realise that competition for any tenure-track appointment is brutal, which of course, makes me even more worried.

Is all your research of this don't-know-whether-it-will-pan-out type? You should have something surer on your plate. Turn part of your dissertation into articles, or do some spin-offs that occurred to you along the way. It's like diversifying your investments: you put some into the risky stuff, and some into the sure things.

Definitely not. I should have 3-4 articles coming out from my dissertation work. And 1-2 of the side projects I'm working on are based on this. But I wasn't including dissertation-articles in my publication count; after all, I'm concerned about current productivity.

I think most of you are just telling me to chill out. Which, not surprisingly, is what all my friends are saying as well...

[hegemony]

I think my advice still applies.  Do you have much the same number and kind of publications as those who have gotten the kind of positions you'd like to get?  I suspect you do and you're just giving in to free-floating anxiety, but only you know the answer.  If not, how can you make your work more efficient so you can get those out? If yes, then yes, pay attention to everyone you know and chill.

Because here's the thing. Second postdocs are very unlikely, in my experience. You're supposed to get a postdoc and then move on to a t-t job.  But say you got a second postdoc.  The universities you applied to would then expect your scholarly output to be phenomenal, seeing as you've had the luxury of two postdocs instead of a regular job. So it doesn't help your situation.

It looks to me as if you're already in a prime position to get a good job. There is only one thing working against you, and that is the kind of anxiety that undermines your confidence and makes you work such overlong hours that you risk burnout.  Look at the top people in your field. Do they have that kind of anxiety?  My guess is no. So that's how you prepare for the top jobs: you chill.

[evariste]

You say you're in a math department. That makes a difference. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this. I think you're way overreacting. Here's some perspective from a math prof (me). It's completely normal in math to have a bunch of projects in the pipeline, all with uncertain outcomes. There will be entire months where you make no measurable research progress on any of your projects -- very few fields are like that. If you start stressing out about lack of productivity, you can't survive in math. The very nature of the subject is such that there will be dry spells and you have to accept them. And there's nothing wrong with including dissertation-based articles in your publication count. They shouldn't be all that you have (i.e. you should have some other stuff too), but they do count.

I don't think Feibelman's book is all that applicable to math. The standards in math are not really comparable to either sciences or humanities. Unlike sciences, there's no real pressure to get huge grants, since math research is very cheap compared to hard sciences (which need equipment). On the other hand, unlike humanities, there's not as much competition for academic jobs. One reason is because, as I said above, math is hard (and thank heavens for that). Not very many people can do it. Another reason is that, while the ratio of PhDs to faculty positions is just as bad as in any other field, math PhDs also have a slew of career options in industry, from high-tech to finance and even business and law. (These options also apply to yourself, by the way, in case you leave academia.) Mathematics is an area where you can write research papers just by thinking, but without the insane job competition of humanities fields. You've really got the best of both worlds. Worrying is not what you need right now. To the contrary, you need some confidence because that's what will help you succeed.

Your rate of publication may or may not be a concern. It depends on the quality of your work. Take me, for example. I graduated eight years ago (Ivy league) at about the same age that you would be in 2013. Like you, I did a postdoc. I had three (!) publications when I applied for t-t jobs, and twelve (!!) publications when I got tenure. In terms of quantity, these numbers are low, but not that low. The secret? I applied for, and got, jobs at places that care about quality over quantity. Yes, they exist. You can find them too.

Finally, regarding that second postdoc. Don't bother. The reason why math departments limit postdoc applications to recent PhDs is because you're expected to apply for t-t jobs after two years. Multiple postdocs are OK, as long as they all fit within that two-year span. That's why some of the really prestigious visiting positions at MSRI etc. are for very short durations.

I was totally cavalier about my work productivity during my postdoc years. I had a strong backup plan involving an industry job. In the end I did get an industry offer, for more money, which I turned down in favor of academia. I strongly recommend developing such a backup plan for yourself. With your Oxbridge/Ivy background, it shouldn't be too hard, and it will do wonders for your sanity.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

evariste, the job market 8 years ago in math was much much better than it is now.  We had approximately 5 times as many applicants this year's search as we had then.  A candidate who had been out 2 years or more and only had 2 publications (including proceedings and "accepted for publication") wouldn't have made our first cut unless those papers were in the Annals.

As for "recent PhDs", this can certainly mean more than 2 years.  Most of our top applicants had 3+ years out.  What it is meant to eliminate is (a) senior applicants, (b) people who have been floating around the diaspora for many years, and (c) people jumping from one TT position to ours.  (Actually, it is often meant as a substitute for the illegal "no old applicants please".)

Oxbridge PhD + Ivy postdoc makes you potentially very attractive, but get those papers out.  Also, if you are looking for a job in public university, even a state flagship, make sure you figure out a way to get some authentic teaching credentials.  There aren't many mathematics departments where the load is lower than 3 courses every 2 semesters; most are 2+2 or more. Deans (who have to sign off on positions) like to see teaching credentials. - DvF

[mother_goose]

You say you're in a math department. That makes a difference. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this. I think you're way overreacting. Here's some perspective from a math prof (me). It's completely normal in math to have a bunch of projects in the pipeline, all with uncertain outcomes. There will be entire months where you make no measurable research progress on any of your projects -- very few fields are like that. If you start stressing out about lack of productivity, you can't survive in math. The very nature of the subject is such that there will be dry spells and you have to accept them. And there's nothing wrong with including dissertation-based articles in your publication count. They shouldn't be all that you have (i.e. you should have some other stuff too), but they do count.

I don't think Feibelman's book is all that applicable to math. The standards in math are not really comparable to either sciences or humanities. Unlike sciences, there's no real pressure to get huge grants, since math research is very cheap compared to hard sciences (which need equipment). On the other hand, unlike humanities, there's not as much competition for academic jobs. One reason is because, as I said above, math is hard (and thank heavens for that). Not very many people can do it. Another reason is that, while the ratio of PhDs to faculty positions is just as bad as in any other field, math PhDs also have a slew of career options in industry, from high-tech to finance and even business and law. (These options also apply to yourself, by the way, in case you leave academia.) Mathematics is an area where you can write research papers just by thinking, but without the insane job competition of humanities fields. You've really got the best of both worlds. Worrying is not what you need right now. To the contrary, you need some confidence because that's what will help you succeed.

Your rate of publication may or may not be a concern. It depends on the quality of your work. Take me, for example. I graduated eight years ago (Ivy league) at about the same age that you would be in 2013. Like you, I did a postdoc. I had three (!) publications when I applied for t-t jobs, and twelve (!!) publications when I got tenure. In terms of quantity, these numbers are low, but not that low. The secret? I applied for, and got, jobs at places that care about quality over quantity. Yes, they exist. You can find them too.

Finally, regarding that second postdoc. Don't bother. The reason why math departments limit postdoc applications to recent PhDs is because you're expected to apply for t-t jobs after two years. Multiple postdocs are OK, as long as they all fit within that two-year span. That's why some of the really prestigious visiting positions at MSRI etc. are for very short durations.

I was totally cavalier about my work productivity during my postdoc years. I had a strong backup plan involving an industry job. In the end I did get an industry offer, for more money, which I turned down in favor of academia. I strongly recommend developing such a backup plan for yourself. With your Oxbridge/Ivy background, it shouldn't be too hard, and it will do wonders for your sanity.

evariste, the job market 8 years ago in math was much much better than it is now.  We had approximately 5 times as many applicants this year's search as we had then.  A candidate who had been out 2 years or more and only had 2 publications (including proceedings and "accepted for publication") wouldn't have made our first cut unless those papers were in the Annals.

As for "recent PhDs", this can certainly mean more than 2 years.  Most of our top applicants had 3+ years out.  What it is meant to eliminate is (a) senior applicants, (b) people who have been floating around the diaspora for many years, and (c) people jumping from one TT position to ours.  (Actually, it is often meant as a substitute for the illegal "no old applicants please".)

Oxbridge PhD + Ivy postdoc makes you potentially very attractive, but get those papers out.  Also, if you are looking for a job in public university, even a state flagship, make sure you figure out a way to get some authentic teaching credentials.  There aren't many mathematics departments where the load is lower than 3 courses every 2 semesters; most are 2+2 or more. Deans (who have to sign off on positions) like to see teaching credentials. - DvF

Thank you both for the advice. I found it immensely useful.

[mleok]

Are you in applied or computational mathematics? I ask because you mentioned also working with engineers. In that instance, getting your first NSF grant while you're on the postdoc (assuming you're PI eligible) is a big boost to your application, and will almost surely get your application noticed.

The job market for R1 math departments can be a bit brutal, with a relatively small number of candidates (in hot fields) receiving many of the interview spots, and if you weren't already aware of it, there's the math jobs rumor mill:

http://notable.math.ucdavis.edu/wiki/Mathematics_Jobs_Wiki

The quality of the letters and the stature of your letter writers can have a decisive effect on the process.

[scampster]

Woah, that is crazy that they list people's names! In my engineering field (which overlaps with applied math), our wikis are useless, but I didn't realize some fields posted names too.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

It is a silly, inaccurate list (where are the other 700 applicants?), and any applicant who lets his or her name get listed there during the interview season could be doing themselves harm.  - DvF

[mleok]

It is a silly, inaccurate list (where are the other 700 applicants?), and any applicant who lets his or her name get listed there during the interview season could be doing themselves harm.  - DvF

It was reasonably accurate the year I applied for jobs (a number of years ago), and it consists only of the shortlisted candidates. In practice, its impact on one's prospects is highly nonlinear, and I speculate that a buzz sometimes forms around the most highly sought after candidates.