Dr. Hannes Röst giving a talk at the University of Toronto. (Credit: Samantha Yammine)
You’ve heard the rumours – it is notoriously difficult to get a job as a tenure-track Principal Investigator (PI). The 10,000 PhDs project reported that, on average, about 23 percent of life sciences PhDs from the University of Toronto get a tenure stream position.
An interactive mathematical model put forth by David van Dijk et al. a few years ago allows you to input your personal variables to get a custom probability of your chances of success. Their model gave me a 26 percent chance, which, depending on what you’ve heard, might be surprisingly good or bad. Though according to this model if I were male I’d have a 37 percent chance, which is shockingly awful. but I digress … perhaps I’ll cover this in another post.
If these numbers are anxiety-producing for you, consider the following: many PhDs don’t want to be PIs so that might be confounding these statistics! If you are in the pro-PI camp, I’ve included some tips below from Dr. Hannes Röst, a newly appointed PI at the University Toronto. I recently attended a talk he gave on this topic.
Things to start thinking about TODAY – assessing options and finding mentors
- Do a career assessment and consider the fit of at least three or four possible career paths, both in and out of academia.
- This can include both informal reflection as well as a visit to a Career Centre since, “you may not be the best person to assess yourself. In fact, you may be underestimating your abilities and fit to be a good PI.” And I agree – the only reason not to pursue something should be because you really don’t want to; passion is a better guide than doubt.
- As we know, networking is key for finding new opportunities, getting endorsements, and gaining advice (for example, at conferences, with guest speakers, collaborators, scientists at your institute, on Twitter, your past research institutes, etc.).
- Create what Röst called, “an environment of planned happenstance – where you’re not actively setting up your goal, but cultivating the environment where this can happen naturally.”
The application process
Most positions in North America post applications in the fall, meaning you should be on the lookout and getting your referees prepared in advance. While Dr. Röst only applied to a few places, it is not uncommon for people to send out 50-100 applications. That is a lot of work considering that each institution may call for slightly different things and your statements should be tailored to the place you’re applying to (e.g. if it’s more of a teaching vs. research-heavy department).
For the cover letter Dr. Röst advises:
- “Keep it brief and to the point – remember the search committee is looking at hundreds of applications.”
- Make sure to tell them why your research is interesting (i.e. which big questions are you trying to answer and why do these matter now?) and important (future impact/applications), both in general and for that particular institution.
- Demonstrate why you are the ideal candidate to succeed in this research area.
In the research statement section:
- Elaborate on your academic history, weaving together all areas of research you’ve participated in and how the diverse experiences have nurtured you to be the perfect combination for the main focus of your statement.
- “Move from a postdoc mindset to a PI mindset: you don’t want to just pitch incrementally improving your previous research. If you are going to be the PI now you need to be writing projects for many people in YOUR future lab, so go bigger.”
And for reference letters (one of the most important parts of the application):
- Offer a template to referees that will reinforce the rest of your application.
- Make sure you’re asking someone who will write compelling comparative statements about you such as, “of all my colleagues, ____ is the go-to for ___” or, “she is in the top ____ percent of postdocs I’ve ever seen.”
After the application: getting the most out of interviews
While you shouldn’t expect to hear back from every department, those who do approve your application will call you in for a long interview that usually includes giving a job talk to a larger audience and a full day of interviews.
To prepare for this day:
- Skim at least one paper from each of the faculty you’ll meet with so you automatically have conversation starters.
- Try to chat with someone already at that institute to get the inside scoop on what they’re looking for.
- Prepare answers to the main questions:
- What are your short- and long- term research plans and where will you apply for funding?
- What is your teaching experience and what can you teach here?
- Why do you want to come here? How do you fit into our department?
- Go to job talks for candidates at your institute to get a feel for what they are like
- Be very prepared and don’t forget to highlight the bigger picture of your research so they can see you’re ready to lead a lab and have great ideas to bring to the department.
It’s not over yet: everything’s negotiable
The goal of the interview is to get an offer but, before you sign anything, you want to make sure you negotiate what you need to be successful. Often after the offer they will give you a second campus visit, and this second visit is a good time to ask questions about the following:
- the space you’ll be given
- details for tenure criteria
- how much teaching is required
- how much startup money you will be given and whether there are any conditions to it (for example, does this include student stipends and salary? Equipment founds? If so, for how long and how much?)
- benefits (including health, but also moving costs, pension and sabbatical terms)
- partner support
- starting date
You may not get everything you ask for, but you do have a right to ask; everything’s negotiable even if the answer is “no.” Ask other recent appointees for advice!
You can do it and you’re not alone!
The talk ended with someone inevitably asking about first-author Science and Nature papers. While of course these help, they’re not always a finite criterion. Many people don’t apply because they don’t have them, even though it’s only one of many parts of the application. If you can demonstrate your productivity and the validity of your future ideas in other ways, that may just be enough.
Good luck! Perhaps Signals will be featuring your lab’s work one day!
If you’re looking for more resources, check out the conversations happening daily on Twitter via #phdchat, #sciencetwitter, and #academictwitter. I also found this conversation between PIs Amy S. Gladfelter and Mark Peifer a good balance between uplifting and realistic.
Latest posts by Samantha Yammine (see all)
- Communicating new science in a crisis - April 2, 2020
- Warming up to better public relations for scientists - November 22, 2018
- Bioprinting tissues of the future with Dr. Stephanie Willerth - November 16, 2018
Comments