next »

[southerntransplant]

Personally, I suggest you get a job at NIH or NSF as a program officer and start turning down your colleagues' grants

I know this is a joke, but it reinforces my opinion that many administrators at NIH and NSF took these jobs because they couldn't hack it as scientists.  Also, the PO has very little to say about whether a grant is funded at NIH - they can push a borderline grant over the line at the end of the year if there is money left over, but neither the PO or the SRA has any say in the review process.

The hypothetical PO would have a conflict of interest and may not be permitted to oversee proposals from his or her former institution.

I've been very impressed by the competence, broad knowledge, and thoughtfulness of the PO's (NSF, NASA) with whom I've worked.

I'll jump in here to say that I agree with geonerd. I've worked with several POs at NSF and in DoD. They have an excellent broad view, are very well versed in the fields over which they administered funding and were not at all failed academics. They also have quite a bit of influence (in fact, ultimate say) of what gets funded. The reviews and panels are guidance, not the final say so. To think of them as merely the guys with the checkbooks is philistine.

I'll also say that I think the OP should be cut a break. We don't know what sort of markers the OP was given in their institution. I'm continually amazed at the differences in mentoring that occur across departments even in the same college.

[alleyoxenfree]

Personally, I suggest you get a job at NIH or NSF as a program officer and start turning down your colleagues' grants

I know this is a joke, but it reinforces my opinion that many administrators at NIH and NSF took these jobs because they couldn't hack it as scientists.  Also, the PO has very little to say about whether a grant is funded at NIH - they can push a borderline grant over the line at the end of the year if there is money left over, but neither the PO or the SRA has any say in the review process.

The hypothetical PO would have a conflict of interest and may not be permitted to oversee proposals from his or her former institution.

I've been very impressed by the competence, broad knowledge, and thoughtfulness of the PO's (NSF, NASA) with whom I've worked.

Yes.  And yes, it was a joke, meant to lighten the OP's mood.  I always find a revenge fantasy cathartic.

[southerntransplant]

If you took the job without knowing exactly what it entailed, you are a moron and I am completely unsurprised that you failed.

Wow.

Check it, dude. This is uncalled for.

[snu88]

I am disturbed by mozman's comments. I am not really upset about him/her personally, because mozman is John Doe to me anyway. But it is disturbing that there might be other John Doe's like that out there. Some people will never get it.... not to speak of those who don't like me, but maybe my friends' friends (who knows? my friends, too, maybe), or even those who are in search committee who review my application. So, hereby I will STFU and tell them:

This so and so university has given me such a great opportunity. I have been happy all along. I did A and B to help the department's mission of such and such. Unfortunately, despite the great resources and support given to me, my R01 proposal got triaged. Yet, I got great, practically constructive feedback from reviewers so I am still confident that I will get funded eventually. The problem is, I need at least 1 more year to collect prelim data to strengthen the proposal but my department wants to cut the contract. I don't really know whether that is based on the budget or I might have been a disappointment to them. But either way, I don't blame them and respect their decision. Now, hire me. I am almost ready. Invest on me just a fraction of dollars that they had put on me. I can turn around and show you my success quickly.

Hmmm.... actually this doesn't look too bad. Now, I have grown enough to know that people will not take this to the letter, so I am not saying this to impress them or anything. But this should be a perfect answer to 'why are you leaving so and so university?' And we don't have to talk about anything about this so and so univ but focus on what I can or should do at the new place.

So, I should thank mozman for helping me see the reality.

[mozman]

Actually, you're right.  I'm being nasty.  Too little sleep for the last couple weeks. Sorry about that.

OP, the best thing for you to do is have multiple projects in the fire at once.  You should be submitting a new grant or a revised grant every submission cycle - that means 3 times a year.  If you only have a single project in the works, every rejection puts you back 9-12 months. You need backup proposals to fill in the gaps.

Don't be discouraged about triage.  I've had many grants funded, but have had more rejected/triaged than funded. My first R01 was triaged twice before it was funded. 

[snu88]

OP, the best thing for you to do is have multiple projects in the fire at once.  You should be submitting a new grant or a revised grant every submission cycle - that means 3 times a year.  If you only have a single project in the works, every rejection puts you back 9-12 months. You need backup proposals to fill in the gaps.

I didn't think about that. I will definitely consider. Thank you.

[snu88]

Details differ, but I wasn't alone.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/working-the-assembly-line-at-the-human-experimentation-factory/43646

[staypuff]

I feel for you.

My first academic job was at a top medical school as a "research faculty."  The MD's treated the PhD's like second class citizens and I was used worse than a graduate student to do everyone's data analysis.  It was like working at a factory instead of an academic institution.  I was told "to get back to work" when talking with colleagues, told to sign out when I left for an appointment, and the director required to be an author on EVERY manuscript... irregardless of topic.

The turn-over rate of PhDs was so high.  Within 2 months of my leaving, two other PhD's left for other academic positions. 

While I understood the 80% funding requirement, it was almost impossible to "do my own work" because I was used like a toilet paper. 

What a nightmare. 

 
Keep publishing if possible and start looking out for yourself and what will make you more marketable at this point.  Good luck.

[snu88]

Another illustration of dysfunctional department/lack of leadership:

Shortly after I was officially informed of the reduction of my salary to 50%, as I said earlier, which was not a surprise, comments from some nasty people made me wonder what the source of funding for that 50% would be. So I asked the chair, risking crossing the boundary---because it is not my business how the dept pays me. It was rather an uncouth question. Alas, his response was

"Hmmm, I dunno, need to find out... will let you know."

Hey, mister, I don't really need to know that. All I need is your response like 'snu88, you shouldn't be concerned about budget matters, you got this official notice that you'd be paid this much for one year. That should be it.' 

I highly doubt that, in the end, the dept would default on the written commitment, especially on HR matters like this. But I resent the culture here that everything that has been written or promised should still have to go through another layer of hassles, because these guys are saying that the dept is doing so much favor on me so I have to kneel down and beg for mercy.