*Concerns of Young Mathematicians* Volume 1 Issue 17 October 27, 1993 An electronically distributed digest for discussions of the issues of concern to mathematicians at the beginning of their careers. PLEASE FORWARD TO ANY POTENTIALLY INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS Please, direct submissions and questions to Steve Kennedy kennedy@math.stolaf.edu , editor for the month of November. Next issue: Wednesday, November 3. Editor for October: Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu Editor for November: Steve Kennedy kennedy@math.stolaf.edu To subscribe: Send mail to Charles Yeomans at cyeomans@s.ms.uky.edu Back issues and other information are available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ms.uky.edu, in pub3/mailing.lists/ymn-list. Editor for the month of August was Kalin Godev (kalin@math.psu.edu). Editor for the month of September was Ed Aboufadel (aboufade@scus1.ctstateu.edu) Publication will be weekly for now, and increase when appropriate. Table of Contents Item # Title ------ ----- 1 Editor's notes 2 News and notes 3 Lisa Thompson: NSF funding to young investigators. 4 William H. Rowan: Funding in Mathematics 5 Ed Aboufadel: Letter Writing; NSF; SSC 6 David Cruz-Uribe: Job Hunting at the AMS Meeting 7 Gary McGuire: Early Deadlines 8 Art Guetter: Tenure practices 9 Mark Winstead: A possible column for the CoYM 10 Joseph Lipman: Comments from a former chair 11 The Chalk Talk Room a) Greg Gibson b) Curtis Bennett 10 Closing Credits _______________________________________________________________ Item #1 Editor's notes: Well, I have some egg on my face. The first few items concern NSF funding. It seems that some (much) of the information I put out (Vol.1,15) concerning NSF grant funding has come under question (see #3). I sincerely apologize about this and hope no harm has come from it. My wife tells me that you can't set out to change the world without a few mistakes, but I will try to keep the number small. My month as editor is coming to a close. It has been time consuming but informative. Thank you to all of those who have wished me luck at various times, and a great deal of thanks to those who have sent in submissions. I would like to thank Charles Yeomans for being our computer "go to" guy. I am not sure we could ever have been as successful otherwise. Before I sound too much like an Academy Awards acceptance speech. I will stop with the thank you's. Over the weekend, I went to the MAA meeting of the Ohio Chapter. I would encourage everybody to consider attending these meetings. I think they do help in the job hunt. There are many smaller schools that I had never heard of and this is a way to find out about them. Also, the MAA meetings are a way to become a known quantity. It won't help that much at the research schools, but I think it could be very helpful at the smaller schools. Curtis Bennett Bowling Green State University cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu _______________________________________________________________ Item #2 News and notes a) In addition to Item #3, the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics (JPBM) has been in contact with me. Let me begin by mentioning that there is an interview in the July/August *Notices* with Fred Wan, the director of the NSF Department of Mathematical Sciences (DMS). It covers many funding issues and gives a percentage breakdown of number of grants awarded to faculty of different levels of experience. Unfortunately, it gives no breakdown as to percentage of $$'s. It is also unclear where the NSF Postdoctoral and Graduate Fellowships in mathematics are listed. In any case, I encourage all members to read the interview. Lisa Thompson the Congressional Liason of the JPBM and I have now sent several letters back and forth. In one of them she says: I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the priority that DMS attaches to supporting young PhDs. Also I think that while the Harvards and Princetons do get alota lot of grants, there are many mathematical scientists from non-elites who compete favorably with the top departments. I will soon be sending email to Fred Wan asking for more specific information if he can provide it. I will publish this when I receive it. Lisa Thompson has also offered to help us should we decide that the funding policy warrants change. She also asks: One thing I would like to see is that in addition to any communications you make to NSF/DMS, you also try to work with the policy entities of the professional societies. If we can use the same messages, we will both be in stronger positions. While JPBM focuses more on NSF-wide policies and on supporting NSF in Congress, we are in constant communication with DMS about its internal policies. And the JPBM staff works with the science policy committees of AMS, MAA, and SIAM, which are more likely to take positions on internal DMS policies. I wholeheartedly agree, and I hope we can come to a consensus after seeing the monetary data, of what we would like to see done. One final note, Dr. Thompson pointed out that the JPBM had nothing to do with the killing of the flat-rate funding proposal. That was done by an AMS committee who stated that they felt it would ultimately prove counter- productive. For more information on the flat rate proposal, I refer you to the Dec. 1992 and the Jan. 1993 AMS *Notices*. b) The Myth that there is an impending shortage of mathematicians. It is stated in Item #10 that the author believes the myth died in 1990 and gives a reference to the Letters page of the November *Notices* of that year. Since the first letter is his, I commend Dr. Lipman for being one of the early people on the side of truth. There is also a response to Dr. Lipman's letter on by the then chair of the AMS-MAA Data Committee, Dr. Connors. In his response Dr. Connors says "All the predictions of shortages I have seen have been long term, usually focused on the turn of the century." It is true that Dr. Connors admitted that the short-term job prospects are poor, and he attributed this to the events in China and Eastern Europe at that time. This does seem to support that some in the MAA-AMS have felt the myth to be untrue for years. My personal feeling (and I do not see a way to precisely fix a date) is that the AMS's acceptance of the myth died in June of 1992, when an article in the October *Notices* stated there was no reason to believe that the job market would get better with the economy. In any case, I don't want to argue about when the AMS really admitted to the problem. Rather, I would point out that in the words of Neil Calkin, "The myth is still there. A little smaller than the MYTH, but it is ready to grow again, to rear its ugly head." I say this based on the numerous occasions that some senior faculty member somewhere has said to me that "sure the market is bad today, but it will be better in a couple of years when my student gets out." Of course, I can't guarantee it won't, but it is irresponsible to be telling students not to think about what else they might do if they don't find a job in academia. c) A last comment. Ken Ross has mentioned to me by personal e-mail that the University of Oregon is putting information on line about faculty specialties to help applicants. In his note he commented that the department took some stirring up to make the change. I would suggest to the members who are faculty consider suggesting similar changes to their departments. _________________________________________________________________ Item #3 Lisa Thompson: NSF funding to young investigators. As the Congressional Liaison for the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics (a joint venture of SIAM, AMS, and MAA established to formulate and promote public policy recommendations), let me assure YMN readers that Congress is *NOT* pushing NSF to decrease the number of mathematical scientists who get funding. Contrary to popular notions, Congress simply does not micromanage to that level, especially with regard to NSF. A write-to-Congress campaign on this issue is misguided, and I urge you to get the facts before initiating any such a campaign. There are pressures on the number of mathematical scientists who get funding, so let me try to give you an accurate picture of why this is so. Under Director Walter Massey, the NSF made a policy decision to increase, on average, grant size and duration (this was for all of NSF, not just mathematics). There are two reasons why this makes sense: 1. Successful grants need to be funded adequately, i.e. at a level that allows completion of the work for which the grant was awarded (the recent Commission on the Future of NSF asserted this very strongly); and 2. NSF has a nightmarish administrative burden in trying to administer the large number of grants they provide, and with budget cutbacks, needs to reduce this burden. The NSF allows some flexibility in this policy, and the Division of Mathematical Sciences under Director Fred Wan and his predecessors has used this flexibility creatively to support as many mathematical scientists as quality and the DMS budget allow. Briefly, "world-class" research proposals are fully funded; there is an emphasis on junior investigators to provide adequate support at the beginning of their careers; remaining funded proposals are subject to provision of less money than the grantee requested (using a formula that is consistent across programs). It is true that fewer mathematical scientists were funded in FY93 than in the previous year. This is due almost entirely to the fact that the FY93 budget did not fare well in Congress last year. The NSF budget fluctuates each year based on its appropriation from Congress, so there are yearly changes in the number of grantees having nothing to do with grant-size policy. The FY94 budget for NSF research, which was passed by the House this week, will increase by 8 percent over the FY93 budget, so things are looking up. (Note that this does not mean DMS will get an 8 percent increase--we won't know the DMS budget until later this year.) JPBM and many mathematical scientists contacted Members of Congress this year on behalf of the NSF budget. Prof. Aboufadel is right: we must make a stronger case for funding for mathematics. Furthermore, the case must be made on the basis of the value of mathematical research to society, and not on the number of mathematical scientists funded. I would love to count YMN readers among those we can rely on to make appropriate contacts during the budget process next year. Moreover, I would be pleased to help YMN obtain information prior to undertaking any lobbying activities of its own. One further note: The July/August issue of NOTICES of the AMS contains an interview with DMS Director Fred Wan that gives much better details about DMS policies. Sincerely, Lisa Thompson Congressional Liaison Joint Policy Board for Mathematics 202/234-9570 202/462-7877 FAX jpbm@math.umd.edu [I have looked at the write-up in the *Notices*. The citation reads in part: "... At the other end, we also want to make sure that a certain number of outstanding junior investigators are funded adequately. Past experience indicates around 25% of our awards are in that area." I apologize for any misinformation that may have been given out earlier. Moreover, -- editor] _______________________________________________________________ Item #4 William H. Rowan: Funding in Mathematics (1) I object to the large amount of time it takes to prepare funding proposals. This is basically wasted time, because it does not result in publications or new research. (Instead, it amounts to trying to explain your research program to a particular, specialized type of audience.) I would prefer a system whereby you send in reprints/preprints and a C.V., and are NOT allowed to submit anything not intended for publication. (2) Is funding a smaller number of people bad? The same amount of money given to a smaller number of people means that the mean amount given to a researcher is the same, but the variance is increased. More variance means greater insecurity for everyone, except possibly the people getting the large grants. (But even they would feel great pressure to produce.) Maybe it would also mean a greater incentive? (3) In academia, prestige and name-recognition seem to count for everything. This leads to some behavior which is unproductive, and to vicious cycles (e.g., you aren't well-known, so you can't get funding, so it's harder to do good research, so you aren't well-known...) (4) Computer networking is changing everything. I don't think it is as important as it used to be to be at a center for the subject you are in. When we can have electronic "meetings" this will change even more. William H. Rowan _______________________________________________________________ Item #5 Ed Aboufadel: Letter Writing; NSF; SSC Last week I posted a letter that I was sending to my congresswoman on the subject of NSF funding of mathematics. I feel I need to qualify some of my comments. For instance, I suggested in the letter that Congress was cutting funding for mathematics research. What I intended to write was: "In particular, there is a push to invest money in bigger grants for mathematics, but to fund fewer proposals, the result being that less mathematicians are funded." However, even that might not be quite accurate, for as Lisa Thompson writes in today's Digest: "let me assure YMN readers that Congress is *NOT* pushing NSF to decrease the number of mathematical scientists who get funding....A write-to-Congress campaign on this issue is misguided, and I urge you to get the facts before initiating any such a campaign." It is true that the facts are still a bit murky here, so I'd like to encourage anyone who is about to drop that letter in the mailbox to their representative to hold back. One fact that is not in doubt is that the Super Conducting Super-Collider (SCC) project has been cancelled by Congress, which has appropriated just enough money to close the project down. I have not been a great fan of the SCC, viewing it as an example of Big Science at the expense of Small Science. However, I worry that the cancellation of the SCC is a signal that it is open season on all federal funding of scientific research. In this regard, Lisa Thompson also writes, "The case must be made on the basis of the value of mathematical research to society, and not on the number of mathematical scientists funded." I agree that the mathematical community must be articulate about the value of mathematics, particularly to Congress over the next several months. But I also feel that the number of mathematical scientists funded is equally important, and I know there is some debate about that. One of the reasons we are here at YMN is to remind people that there is a large cadre of young mathematicians who have been or are being educated and would like to have opportunities similar to those of past generations. Edward Aboufadel Southern Connecticut State University _______________________________________________________________ Item #6 David Cruz-Uribe: Job Hunting at the AMS Meeting Remarks about job hunting at the AMS meeting: So as to create as broad a pool of anecdotes/information, I thought I would describe my experience at the San Antonio AMS meeting last January. I'll give away the end of the story: I didn't get a job through the JR or any of my contacts at the meeting--I got one through another personal connection. I personally found the job register to be disappointing. In retrospect, I suspect that it is because most of the schools at it were small, and my resume was more appealing to larger institutions (but not appealing enough). I only got four of (as I recall) 15 requested interviews, plus one school which requested to see me. Of these, one was a school which had contacted me two weeks previously, and we had already made tentative plans for an on-campus interview (it was within driving distance of my home). Of the others, one was a school which showed all sorts of interest in me, even though they began the interview by telling me they were going to hire an algebraic topologist, and my resume clearly said I did harmonic analysis. (I never did quite figure out why they were so excited--later follow-ups produced no significant response.) A third was a school which did show some interest in me; I was never asked in for an interview--I was in the pool of alternates should every single one of those interviewed turn them down. (Not much chance of that in this market.) Let me skip the details on the fourth, except to say that it was a comedy of errors in which I managed quite unintentionally to leave the impression I wasn't interested (I was) and (as I was told later) lost out on an interview. If there is a moral to any of these stories: it helps immensely to contact schools in the JR both before and after the meeting. Also, in this market, it seems mandatory now that you have narrowed where you want to go (i.e. teaching or research; state school or liberal arts college) or be able to give that impression effectively during an interview. I was not able to, and this probably hurt me (both at the JR and later). The fifth interview bordered on the absurd: it was a school I had never heard of, and had not asked for an interview with. Despite the fact that they had asked to interview me, the reviewer spent most of the 15 minutes berating me for not being prepared to talk to him and not showing any enthusiasm for his school! I also had two interviews outside the JR. One was from a big research university which wrote me beforehand. This went well and resulted in an on-campus interview. The other was from a school I had applied to but had not contacted. They sent someone to my 10 minute talk to hear me, and approached me afterwards. Let me use this as an opportunity to pitch the 10 minute talks. They seemed pointless, but a number of people from a lot of schools came to hear me. I thought it was very good for making contacts, if nothing else. Finally, I want to comment on the subject of dress: I certainly did not dress up for the interviews, in the sense of wearing a coat and tie. I did dress more neatly than usual, but made no effort to wear special clothing. My opinion is that in math this isn't necessary, but I could be badly mistaken. (Along these lines: I wrote to a chairman of a department where I had made the short list, and asked if a shave/haircut/suit & tie would have improved my chances. He just laughed.) David Cruz-Uribe, SFO Dept of Math. Purdue University cruz@math.purdue.edu ______________________________________________________________ Item #7 Gary McGuire: Early Deadlines When I was applying to graduate schools, there seemed to be an agreement between all the departments to have the same deadline for replying to their offers. Any chance of adopting this system in the job market? Gary McGuire ______________________________________________________________ Item #8 Art Guetter: Tenure practices In a previous issue, Curtis Bennett noted that he and Steve Kennedy were working on a petition asking the societies to come out against departments offering positions that exploit young mathematicians. In particular, they are concerned about the 1-year positions that have high teaching loads, low pay and no chance of continued employment. There is another issue that parallels this one. As budgets get tighter at colleges and universities (especially small colleges), there is pressure to save money in various ways. Deans quickly note that a new Ph.D. (or part-timer) is much cheaper than a faculty member who has moved through the ranks. I have no first-hand evidence that this has become a factor in tenure decisions at smaller institutions, but as someone who has recently gone through the tenure terror, I had my concerns. What happens to the career of a young mathematician who has been denied tenure at a small, teaching institution? A dangerous trend that I have seen develop at some of the smaller institutions here in Minnesota is the push for more research from younger faculty - faculty who are doing research look good to trustees, donors, and parents of prospective students. Usually the necessary support is not forthcoming from the administration. This doubles the pressure on new faculty members, and can easily change a college from a top-notch teaching institution to a second-rate research institution. After seeing a first draft of this note Steve Kennedy asked me: Do you have any insight into why trustees, donors, and parents look so favorably upon research? The latter, at least, should be threatened by it! They are paying my salary to educate their child--not to write papers that few people will ever read (least of all their child!). Have these people been sold a bill of goods? If so, by whom and to what purpose? I could only answer with: How does the public decide if their university is good? They count publications, grant money, etc! They count the number of stars on the faculty, and stellar teachers rarely, if ever, count as stars. They want to see flashy research done in hi-tech labs with lots of bells and whistles. Oftentimes only lip service is paid to teaching. This should not be the case at small schools, but... It appears (anecdotally only!) that tenure is getting harder and harder to come by. We even occasionally hear rumblings from trustees that tenure is an outmoded concept. (Maybe it is - there is an interesting article by Edward Shils of the U. of Chicago in the Spring 1993 issue of "The American Scholar" entitled "Do We Still Need Academic Freedom" regarding the AAUP, tenure, and academic freedom.) The discussion in the Newsletter seems to center on getting that great position, but I'm sure that many of your readers are interested in the tenure process. I should note that I would expect this discussion to have two tracks - tenure at (primarily) teaching institutions, and at (primarily) research institutions. (Though these distinctions can be very blurry.) One major problem that I see at my institution, and at others nearby, is a clear lack of information from the administration as to the expectations of the university. A new faculty member should have a reasonable understanding as to what is required to obtain tenure at an institution, and some of this understanding should come before being hired. A step in the right direction would be for colleges and universities to recognize that when hiring a new faculty member, that hire is making as much of a commitment to the university as the university is making to that young scholar. __________________________________________________________________________ Art Guetter Chair, Dept. of Mathematics Hamline University 1536 Hewitt Ave. (612) 641-2311 St. Paul, MN 55104 aguetter@piper.hamline.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. Yes, that "Chair, Dept. of Math" is correct - I was chair of my department while untenured and going through the tenure process. This is definitely not recommended for anyone. ______________________________________________________________ Item #9 Mark Winstead: A possible column for the CoYM I would like to float a column idea, and I will go as far as to agree to be the column editor for the foreseeable future. It would be a kind of gossip column, where rumors could be printed. This column would depend on all of CYM's subscribers to send me there rumors and other small pieces of information, and I would edit them together in a column format. I would be the only one who would know the source, but I would try to indicate the reliability of the source, e.g. a senior faculty member at Small Private College has informed me ... . The focus of the column would be the job market, though we can extend the focus if there is popular demand. Example of possible format: *I HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE* Reliable sources report that ... Big State U. didn't mention it in their ads, but they are looking for people with experience in teaching large lecture sections of calculus. ... (some other tidbits) . . . Well-placed sources tell the Grapevine that ... Private College has had request for two new positions approved by the Board of Regents. ... (other tidbits) . . . Rumor has that ... Southeastern College, which had approval to advertise for two tenure track positions, has approval now to hire only one tenure track and a visiting position. . . . Several sources report that ... University of Small State, which advertised an open position, is actually hoping to hire an algebraic topologist and will unless a Fields Medal candidate in another area presents her/himself for consideration. Well, that's the idea. If you like it, say so by writing me, if you don't, ditto. Send any rumors to me at winstead@euclid.ucsd.edu (or winstead@ml.kva.se or mww8f@virginia.edu). Mark Winstead currently at winstead@ml.kva.se ______________________________________________________________ Item #10 Joseph Lipman: Comments from a former chair Here are a few comments from the perspective of a former chair at a research- oriented department (Purdue): 1. If you haven't found out (from your adviser, reading, MathSci disc, combined membership list, ...) who at a department you're applying to might have interests in common with you, why would you expect the department to be particularly interested in you, among the hundreds of other applicants? In fact, at the developmental stage of your career, why would you even want to go to a place where you could be professionally isolated, for lack of anyone to interact with? It could easily turn out to be a waste for both sides. (I've seen that happen too often!) 2. We've heard a lot about the Canadian model for health care, but what about their model for research funding? (No summer salaries, but support for travel, conferences, visitors--things that are fundamental for career-building--as well as computers, books,... 3. It may be scant comfort, but my impression is that the MYTH died about three years ago. (Cf. e.g., Notices, 37 (1990), p.1207.) Joseph Lipman ______________________________________________________________ Item #11 The Chalk Talk Room Item #11a Greg Gibson I've seen various phrases used in some job advertisements such as "send graduate and undergraduate transcripts", "send transcripts", or in many cases "send three(four) letters of recommendations", but no mention of transcripts. Under what circumstances should an applicant send graduate transcripts? What about undergraduate transcripts? If the advertisement requests letters of recommendation, is it implied that the transcripts are also wanted? How are others handling this? I'm getting conflicting advise from within my own department. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm sure others have similar questions. -- Greg Gibson gagibson@math.ncsu.edu _______________________________________________________________ Item #11b Curtis Bennett A call for information on nonacademic jobs. A friend has asked me about how you go looking for nonacademic scientific jobs. He has tried the career placement office at his university with no success. Any suggestions? Curtis Bennett _______________________________________________________________ Item #12 Closing Credits The Young Mathematicians' Network is administered by: Charles Yeomans cyeomans@s.ms.uky.edu Mark Winstead winstead@ml.kva.se Franklin Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.edu Stephen Kennedy kennedy@stolaf.edu Kalin Godev kalin@math.psu.edu Neil Calkin calkin@math.gatech.edu Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu Jeff Adams adams@bright.uoregon.edu Edward Aboufadel aboufade@scus1.ctstateu.edu _______________________________________________________________ End of Journal -- Next week: The Discussion Continues