*Concerns of Young Mathematicians* Volume 2 Issue 20 May 25, 1994 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 Frank Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.edu , editor for the month of June. Next issue: Wednesday, June 1 Editor for May: Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu Editor for June: Frank Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.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. Table of Contents Item # Title ------ ----- 1 Editor's notes 2 Mark Winstead: Employable Fields 3a Tom Roberts: Rejection Notices 3b Charles Mannix: SERIOUS INTEREST COUPON BOOK 4a Brian Borchers: JPBM Report on Recognition and Rewards 4b Ed Aboufadel: More on JPBM Report 5 Daniel Lieman: NSF Grants 6 Iztok Hozo: A Good Rejection Letter 7 Curtis Bennett: Job Survey 8 Ed Aboufadel: MathMagic 9 COSEPUP Questionnaire 10 Closing Credits ___________________________________________________________________ Item #1 Editor's notes: This marks the last issue of my second term as an editor, and I would like to thank everybody who has sent in submissions and suggestions. Ed Aboufadel has completed an index to the issues of the Concerns that appeared last calendar year, and it is now available at the YMN archive site. Thus if you want to find all of the articles about NSF grants that appeared last year, you should be able to do so much more quickly now. This week we have two suggestions on how to improve the job of hunting for a job in mathematics. We also have a description of how to obtain the JPBM Report on Recognition and Rewards in Mathematics department and a brief excerpt of interesting comments from the report. Also there is an article on the anti-NSF bias that has recently been airing (e-ing?) in the YMN. Finally, we have an example of a good rejection letter, another chance to fill in the job hunting survey, and a brief commentary on a new internet program for (K-12) mathematics. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science and Engineering has asked us (and many others) to respond to a survey on graduate education in the sciences and engineering fields. I encourage you to respond to this survey as it is a chance to make our voices heard on a national level. Curtis Bennett Bowling Green State University cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu _______________________________________________________________ Item #2 Mark Winstead: Employable Fields Responses from my questions of several weeks ago still trickle in. You may recall I asked if we should be identifying "employable areas" and should be put in place any mechanisms to direct students to them. I, in general, agree with Don Lewis, whose comments are included below, following those of Daniel Lieman. I would add, however, that in my opinion we (the society of mathematicians) should be providing career information to students, starting at the undergraduate level, about employment prospects and the need to have a broad base background for greater career flexibility. Mark Winstead winstead@euclid.ucsd.edu The comments: It seems that this sort of annectdotal information is not too useful, but for what it's worth... Within number theory, people "building machinery" as opposed to just cleverly solving (even very old, very interesting) problems are doing OK on the market. The key points seem to be a) new tools, not just new results b) interesting applications - modern attacks on old problems seem quite rewarding, in the job hunt c) luck This means that doing something like automorphic forms (or even metaplectic forms) is probably sexier and more employable than classical language work. But this is completely non-binding. I know of someone who worked in function fields - quite classical - and just did brilliant work, plain and simple; she got a great job. There are also people doing decent work in automorphic forms who are getting nothing, but it certainly does appear to be "hotter" at this time than some other fields. All of this falls under MR classification 11. I suspect overall, it looks like people doing number theory are doing perhaps average to a bit above on the market. Certainly not well, but the more impressive looking people are quite employable. In my case, the key was that during a one-year postdoc (MSRI), I managed to get two papers out the door and accepted before I applied for jobs again. That has made all the difference in the world (essentially, this meant they were written between when I graduated and August of the same year)... Daniel Lieman lieman@shire.math.columbia.edu For some perspective on the situation, I include Don Lewis's remarks. Employable areas change rapidly. If one were designated and grad students flocked to it, there would soon be under employment in the area. Students are best served by choosing an area that really attracts them and obtaining a broad enough education that they can do several things. The fact that one student, even one who proved a good theorem didn't get a position should not condemn a field--the individual may not be able to teach, may interview badly, or may not have put forth the effort needed to obtain a position, expecting one to fall out of the trees just because of his theorem. In the past Hopkins was noted as providing their students with little help or advice in finding a position. don Lewis (It should be noted that Prof. Lewis did say "in the past". I do not know the current situation at Hopkins in general, but I do know that a couple of the current faculty there do work very hard to place their students. Any student choosing a grad school to attend should be sure to include the following two questions among the questions they ask of grad school representatives, "Are your students hired?" and "What are your students who graduated two, three, five and ten years ago doing now?".) _______________________________________________________________ Item #3a Tom Roberts Rejection Notices A friend recently told me that the electrical engineering department of the University of Illinois-Chicago got 1,400 applications. At the time I joked that, in mathematics, the next employment trend may be advertisements in AMS Notices that announce the blanket rejection of thousands of applications. Since making that rueful joke, however, I've wondered whether applicants would be willing to trade in their stacks of personally addressed rejection notices for a little more information; I know that I would. Here's what I mean: Perhaps AMS Notices or AMS's e-MATH Employment Opportunities could offer to tabulate, as a service or for a fee to the employer, some basic information about job searches from the employers' perspective. Typical entries in a table might read STATE, University of AAA, Dept. of BBB, CITY Algebra -- filled STATE, University of XXX, Dept. of YYY, CITY Geometry (junior) -- cancelled Geometry (senior) -- cancelled Applied Mathematics -- 12-person short list That type of implied rejection would be impersonal; but the e-MATH version, at least, would be prompt. In a more traditional vein, the classiest rejection letter that I have received is from the Department of Mathematics of Bowdoin College. The letter identifies the position and the person who filled it, and the possibility of a job opening next year is explained. The letter is informative. --Tom Roberts roberts@alpha.brooks.af.mil _______________________________________________________________ Item #3b Charles Mannix SERIOUS INTEREST COUPON BOOK It is a simple fact that a nationally announced job posting for a mathematician in today's market will draw well over 500 responses. Let us be realistic. Of the over 500, only a small percentage of applicants REALLY would view themselves as being a naturally suitable match to the posting. We all have our individual rational criteria and preferences we apply to ranking choices about how well we would belong somewhere. Examples of such factors that influence us are a school's research orientation, teaching goals, city or rural setting, size, etc. Let's be honest; each of us has our individual list of colleges (or type of colleges) ranked in preference as to where we would like to end up. Also, it is doubtful that my private list would appear anything like yours. So, for a given institution, I would divide the 500+++ into two groups 1) Those that would sincerely like to be there and view themselves as a good professional match to the place. 2) Those sending out applications anywhere there is a remote chance of getting a job. In less dog-eat-dog times, all or most of the applications would be in group 1 since most unstressed mathematicians are reasonable -- they would apply only to places that they think could use them and they would be happy working at. In the past, there was once a natural sorting process between institutions and applicants. Certain places attracted certain types of applicants and applicants of a given bent applied to certain types of colleges and universities. Nowadays, all bets are off. Everyone is applying everywhere so many of the 500 to 1200+ applicants would be in group 2. There is no way to prevent an abuse that is only being encouraged by the present job crunch. With a xerox and word processor, there is nothing in the present system to prevent a dishonest or a thoughtless person in group 2 from applying to every college in the land and telling EACH ONE "ever since I was a tiny baby in the crib, my dream has been to be a faculty member at YOUR (Large, Small, public, private, research institution, liberal arts, teaching college, downtown, rural, etc..) LOCATION above all others in the land." "Truly, when I slithered out of the cradle ... I wanted to be a top notch researcher ...., a paragon of a teacher ..., wished to combine teaching and research, ...." Of course, the truth is: A) The applicant is pumping out organic compounds found in barnyards in order to make him/her self appear a desirable match for the job and location rather than sticking closely to the facts. B) It would be hard for any one single individual with a level bubble upstairs and a sane balanced perspective to view himself as equally suited professionally and temperamentally for MIT and a rural western college. We all have preferences and our own view of ourselves in the universe. C) There will be a reckoning, professionally and personally, downstream since many hirings today are not "natural" matches. On one hand, there is an applicant telling a committee what he thinks they want to hear in order to get a job -- any job. On the other is a department hiring somebody that really would have prefered to be elsewhere. (Akin to some wedding receptions I have been to where one KNOWS the happy couple are likely to be divorced in two years because they are fundamentally incompatible.) Of course, the people really being hurt are: A) Hiring Committee staff who have to read, sort, etc nonsincere application materials. The letter can and does often appear sincere and genuine. Yet, often such senders would prefer to respond to almost any other position than the one at hand. B) The person in group 1 that is sending a genuinely sincere application to a place that he/she actually WOULD be a great match. The real honest-to-goodness serious great applicant is too often buried in the pile. PROPOSED SOLUTION Consider encouraging the AMS or MAA to print and issue something like an official coupon book to graduating students and/or those unemployed or underemployed. (My personal view is that the printing and control of them should be a joint AMS, MAA, SIAM, et al effort. "perfect universe") The purpose of the coupons would be to accompany VERY serious applications as a sort of "magic bullet" to designate to the Hiring Committee that this is not a routine-hot-off-the-xerox mailing. THIS PERSON IS VERY! SERIOUS. These are the requirements for the coupons. THE COUPONS WOULD BE INSTANTLY RECOGNIZED BY ALL PARTIES so hence they should come from a major professional society or a combination of them. IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONCE AND ONLY ONCE A YEAR at the start of the academic year. THERE WOULD BE ISSUED ONLY ONE BOOK/PERSON/YEAR THERE WOULD BE A LIMITED NUMBER of stamped coupons printed with the student's name and possibly social security number. (This makes them unique so they can not become sort of a black market item.) The coupons would be numbered or color coded and serve as a limited number of "magic bullets" to be affixed to applications. They would effectively state: "You are my 1st choice" "you are my second choice" "you are my 10th choice" "you are in my top 25" "you are in my top 100" "you are in my top 8000" which would be attached to applications. To prevent possible counterfeiting or duplication of the books, hiring committees could return the used coupons to the originating association as they are received. They could be imprinted with a serial number like a dollar bill. Between a record of the name, social security number, and the serial number, any hanky-panky with the system would be extremely difficult. ARGUMENTS FOR ADOPTION OF THIS OR A SIMILAR SCHEME: The object is to come up with a scheme that encourages targeted selection of applications to institutions. On the receiving end, the application is automatically flagged as just not being another one is the stack. THIS PERSON IS VERY SERIOUS ABOUT US. Perhaps the booklet could contain a total of say -- 40 coupons. A hiring committee who receives the "You are my 1st choice" knows the candidate REALLY means it and ought to give that application some special attention. A smart hiring committee might have a rule that submitted applications with top choice coupons automatically or almost always go into the "process further" stack. If something like this plan is NOT adopted, then consider the alternatives -- We can all continue to be in piles of paper 600,700,1000,1200 +++ file folders deep on the desks of hiring committees across the known universe and most planetary systems. -- Hiring committees could start charging $1000/application received as a "processing fee". However, this kind of thing is a genuine hardship to those folks (like graduate students) already broke. -- Develop a national clearinghouse like the one for higher education in the state of Georgia. (While I support features of this concept, its drawback is the need for a degree of co-operation and co-ordination that only a state decree is likely to pull off.) Also, under a scheme like the proposal or a modification thereof, one is NOT prevented from applying elsewhere. Neither is the hiring committee barred from reading an uncouponed application. It merely becomes obvious in, most cases, (by no tag) that the submitter is not applying to one of his/her higher preference sites. Both the hiring committees and the applicants could start recognizing more easily what are "trash can" applications and stop sending and processing same. Hopefully, the hiring committee's short list would have a number of worthy "coupon entries". However, the plan does not prevent a quality last minute application from appearing in the mailbox. A thoughtful application is not blocked -- only the thoughtless ones discouraged. In the long run, there is a remote chance that a plan like this might bring a return to a more sensible natural sorting process. The aim is balance between institutions and applicants. The perfect universe would have certain places attracting certain types of applicants and applicants of a given bent applying only to their top preferences in colleges and universities. Both the hiring committees and the applicants would come out ahead were the world to instant recognize and adopt the wisdom of my composition herein. As an old cynic, however, I believe I will have my walking on water act perfected prior to all of this occuring. O well, maybe I can still get some respect from my cats. They realize that the real problem is too few real jobs, but at least I am trying to see that applicants and openings are better matched with a lot less stress all around. There is also a chance a more efficient system would actually hire more people. Charles Mannix mannix@amath.washington.edu _______________________________________________________________ Item #4a Brian Borchers JPBM Report on Recognition and Rewards The JPBM Committee on Professional Recognition and Rewards has recently released a report entitled, "Recognition and Rewards in the Mathematical Sciences." I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in issues of tenure, promotion, merit raises, and the definition of scholarship. A note on the report says that copies can be obtained from the AMS at 202-588-1100 or e-mail: amsdc@math.ams.org. Brian Borchers borchers@nmt.edu Department of Mathematics 505-835-5813 New Mexico Tech Socorro, NM 87801 _______________________________________________________________ Item #4a Ed Aboufadel More on JPBM Report Recognition and Rewards in the Mathematics Sciences A new report arrived at our (and probably your) department this week: Recognition and Rewards in the Mathematics Sciences. I think every young mathematician in academia should read this report. It took me about 45 minutes to read all the way through. Basically, the report is the result of a survey of mathematics departments. The survey asked questions of faculty and department chairs in two ways: what was actually the case and what should be the case. Typical questions: How important is classroom teaching in determining promotion and tenure? Do you think that presenting papers at conferences merits salary increases? Do you think that research in educational issues merit salary increases? Here are some quotes from the report, of particular concern to young mathematicians: "Departments and institutions cannot survive without faculty who are willing to take on substantial service responsibilities. These include ... preparing graduate students for the realities of the jobs they will fill inside and outside academia ...." [p.30] "Finally, one of the most important functions of a department is the development of the talent of junior faculty. Such mentoring could include helping these faculty members keep abreast of the current job situation in the job market and how best to be successful in it, know how well they are progressing towards a permanent position, keep informed of the requirements for tenure if they have tenure-track positions, and begin a viable research and teaching career. We encourage departments to put into place a system in which mentoring is a well-defined responsibility of the senior faculty and one for which they are recognized and rewarded." "One of the striking things we found in the site visits, which may be a part of the driving force behind this increased emphasis on research and scholarship, was that, at schools of all types, many junior faculty members were exceptional individuals who were not only excellent teachers and good researchers but also capable of assuming leadership roles in the department." [p.8] "One assistant professor told us that teaching was absolutely the main consideration in the tenure decision, while another in the same department told us the main consideration was research." [p.16] Edward Aboufadel Southern Connecticut State University _______________________________________________________________ Item #5 Daniel Lieman NSF Grants There's been a very anti-NSF grant bias lately in YMN. I'd like to address this a bit, and also make some brief remarks about the math establishment in general. NSF grants are hard to get. It does not help that some people have large grants year after year, and are quite visible, while most get nothing. But the fact is that NSF grants do not all go to people at Princeton/Harvard/Chicago/Berkeley, and that they do not all go to senior "elite bigshots." All NSF information is publicly available. You can telnet to stis.nsf.gov (with a vt100/vt102 emulator) and login as "public," and then find out every nsf grant given out in the past 7 years. All summaries are fully keyworded, so you can see who's getting the money in your field, after a quick search. (When you first connect, select option 1 on the main menu, then move to the "Documents" column on the menu bar, and select "partitions." This will let you select the years you wish to search)... Probably the best advice to someone applying for NSF grants is to: a) apply early! as early as is possible... b) talk to the program director before you apply. These people know a lot, and will tell you if you ask. They can tell you what they look for in a grant, and against what criteria your proposal will be evaluated. I don't want to start an emotional flame-war, but this (it is now several comments in the past few issues) snide NSF grant degradation is not going to do YMN or anyone who is applying for grants any good. Lobbying for more funds - or for flat-rate funding, or limited summer funding (whatever your favorite way of spreading money around) will. There have also been several comments which clearly indicate that some vocal members of YMN do *not* feel that the mathematics establishment is at all concerned about the plight of the "average" junior mathematician. The fact is that many of the issues raised in this forum *have* been the subject of AMS/NSF studies, and by ignoring their conclusions, often achieved at great effort, we encourage senior folks to think of us as people who don't really know what we're talking about. (For example, one interesting document is the "Recognition and Rewards in the Mathematical Sciences," put out by the JPBM Committee on Professional Recognition and Rewards. It is full of interesting numbers, including the somewhat curious fact that while only 2% of faculty at top Ph.D. granting institutions think raises should be across-the-board (vs. merit based, or combination), 23% of faculty at bachelor's granting institutions do. What does it mean? Maybe that teaching is harder to evaluate than research. Maybe that people at various places have different monetary/career ambitions. In any event, we shouldn't even begin to discuss salaries without reading this report). (I also have been concerned about this -- ed.) The point is this: constructive studies have been done; we can do our own investigations (cf. comments on the NSF STIS system, above). But complaints without data backing them up are *not* any kind of catalyst for change. There are lots of good things about being a mathematician, even in this job climate, but there *are* serious problems with the structure and current status of our profession. Let's try and do something to fix that. Daniel Lieman _______________________________________________________________ Item #6 Iztok Hozo A Good Rejection Letter (I am on the job search for two years now. The best rejection letter so far is:) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have filled our ... for next year. These are enormously difficult times for academic mathematicians, as indicated by the fact that a small undergraduate school in the Great Plains (ours) attracted several hundred applications. All on the search committee felt that none of us would have made our own short list! While we cannot single-handedly redress the imbalance of supply and demand, we sincerely hope that you find professionally rewarding work for the coming year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- (It is so nice to have a human response for a change.) Iztok Hozo _______________________________________________________________ Item #7 Curtis Bennett Job Survey This is a third posting of the Job Survey (with the typo finally corrected). To those of you who have responded already, thank you. I would like to do a survey on how subscribers to the YMN have done on the job market this year. This may give us an early idea as to how bad the market has been this year, although it will in no way be a scientific survey. If you could send me email answering the following questions, I would appreciate it. I will try and tabulate results as soon as possible, but I don't expect to find the time very soon. Thanks, Curtis Bennett cbennet@andy.bgsu.edu 1. Did you apply for jobs this year? (If yes, please answer the rest of the questions.) 2. What is your field? 3. How many schools did you apply to? 4. How many industry/government positions did you apply to? 5. How many on-site interviews did you have? 6. How many offers did you receive? (if you received no offers, please skip to question 8). 7. If you received an offer, when was it made? 8. What kind of position is it? (grad student, 1-year, 2-year, part-time, tenure track, etc.) 9. What was your position for 1993-1994? (grad student, 1-year, 2-year, etc.) 10. Please include anything else you feel might be interesting. _______________________________________________________________ Item #8 Ed Aboufadel MathMagic Recently, the YMN was contacted by Alan Hodson, who is running a program called MathMagic over the Internet. Hodson writes: "MathMagic posts challenges into each of four categories (K-3, 4-5, 7-9, and 10-12) to trigger each registered team to pair up with another team and engage in an exchange of problem-solving dialogue." Hodson also writes: "it addresses most of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards." This looks like an interesting program. If anyone in YMN is either a faculty member in a teacher's certification program, a high school teacher, or just anyone interested in Mathematics Education, you can get more information from the following sources: Direct email to: alanh@laguna.epcc.edu GOPHER: gopher forum.swarthmore.edu, then Forum's Archive -- MathMagic _______________________________________________________________ Item #9 COSEPUP Questionnaire The National Academies of Science and Engineering is examining graduate education in the math and sciences area and is trying to collect responses to a questionnaire. They have asked me to post the questionnaire to the YMN and to have responses sent to dstine@nas.edu (this address is listed below also). I think it would be good for our voices to be heard on these issues. Curtis Bennett May 3, 1994 Dear Colleague: I am writing to solicit your views on graduate education of scientists and engineers especially on how well the system is working and your suggestions for improving the graduate degree training program. Your comments will provide crucial input for a committee I am chairing that has been established by the National Academies of Science and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine and charged with evaluating the graduate education system. A description of the study and roster of panel members is enclosed. Please note that the level of research funding is not part of this committee's charge. Some questions on which the committee would like your perspective are attached to this letter. However, you should not feel this is a "questionnaire" but rather a list of questions that might help prepare your comments on graduate education for the committee. Feel free to raise other issues that t he committee has not considered. You should also feel free to pass this letter to others within or outside your institution or discipline who you feel could contribute to the committee's deliberations. The answers can reflect both your personal views and experiences as well as that of your institution or discipline. We would like your comments by June 1, 1994 in the preparation for our meeting in July. Although this is short notice, we believe that your comments will be very useful and important to the panel in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the graduate system, and in identifying ways of improving it. If you send your response to the committee staff at the National Academy of Sciences, they will be quickly distributed to the panel. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Dr. Deborah Stine at (202)334-3239. The address and fax number are listed on the letterhead. Her bitnet address is: dstine@nas; the Internet address is dstine@nas.edu. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for taking the time to provide us with your perspectives on graduate education. Sincerely yours, Phillip A. Griffiths Chairman , ******************************************************************************** Perspectives on Graduate Education 1. The purpose of the study is to assess how well that system will be able to support national research and technology goals in the post-Cold War era. Given today's trends and future needs, is the current concept of PhD training appropriate for the future? What should the national goals and policies for graduate S&E education be in the future? What are the appropriate roles of universities, scientific societies, industry, state and federal governments, and other groups in carrying out the national goals and policies? 2. Some have said that there is an oversupply of Ph.D's relative to demand. Others believe that the market for Ph.D's only needs to be expanded to non-academic areas such as industry (especially those of small to medium-sized), secondary and junior college education, federal and state government, Wall Street, etc. Do you believe this is true? Why or why not? Has your institution taken any actions to reduce the number of graduate students? What are your thoughts on suggestions to: Limit enrollments Expand the professional Masters or provide an alternate doctorate (DSc) Temporarily expand the number of postdoctoral positions Familiarize corporations, etc. with benefits of graduate education Create teaching positions for courses now taught by TA's or contract teachers Improve student counseling to provide realistic view of employment picture Increase use of undergraduate students & technicians in university research Design graduate programs to attract more American citizens 3. Because future demand cannot be predicted confidently, some believe that graduate students should be trained to be more flexible relative to national needs versus what some deride as a "cloning culture" where students are apprenticed to a senior researcher. Others believe that the intense apprenticeship system is the genius behind the American graduate system and it should not be changed. What are your thoughts? What do you think of suggestions to: Encourage graduate students to have a minor Expose students to collaborative projects with teamwork Actively discourage students from overspecializing in a particular subdiscipline Arrange for students to obtain practical experience Provide students with the option of selecting a terminal masters Support more students with traineeships which encourage experience in multiple disciplines and/or work settings Develop the communication skills of graduate students 4. Another area where concern has been expressed is the preparation of Ph.D.'s for teaching. Some believe that Ph.D's lack adequate training and that serving as a TA is not the same as teaching a course. Should graduate students have additional training? 5. The total time from enrollment in graduate study to initial employment has become longer generally? Is this true in your field? If so, what problems does it cause and what could be done about it? 6. What are the opportunities and obstacles for change in graduate education? 7. What would you most like to see changed in the graduate education system? ******************************************************************************* The Young Mathematicians' Network is administered by: Charles Yeomans cyeomans@s.ms.uky.edu Mark Winstead winstead@euclid.ucsd.edu Vic Perera vperera@silver.ucs.indiana.edu Franklin Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.edu Stephen Kennedy kennedy@stolaf.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 Frank Arlinghaus frank@math.ysu.edu Matt Hudelson hudelson@math.washington.edu _______________________________________________________________ End of Journal -- Next week: The Discussion Continues