*Concerns of Young Mathematicians* Volume 3, Issue 31 Oct. 18, 1995 An electronically distributed digest for discussions of the issues of concern to mathematicians at the beginning of their careers. Please direct submissions and questions to Frank Sottile sottile@math.toronto.edu , editor for the month of October. Next issue: Wednesday, 25 October. October Editor: Frank Sottile sottile@math.toronto.edu November Editor: Nancy Wilson nwilson@stmarys-ca.edu To subscribe: Contact Charles Yeomans at cyeomans@ms.uky.edu Back issues and other information are available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ms.uky.edu, in pub3/mailing.lists/ymn-list. Or connect to the YMN homepage on the WWW, the URL: http://math34.gatech.edu:8080/YMN/ymn.html The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the administrative board or membership of the Young Mathematicians' Network. The editorial policy of this newsletter is to encourage discussion of issues, and facilitate the dissemination of information, relevant to the concerns of young mathematicians. Table of Contents Item # Title ------ ----- 1 Editor's notes 2 AMS Centennial Fellowships 3 A Bit of Whimsy: Bob Bruner 4 Impotence of Fact in the Face of Blind Faith Kalin Godev 5 Comments on the AMS Elections Steve Kennedy 6 Closing Credits _______________________________________________________________ Item #1 Editor's notes: This issue begins with a short announcement about the *new* rules for the AMS centennial fellowship. Traditionally, this has been an award for senior researchers, funded from AMS member contributions. Recently the AMS decided to redirect this award to young researchers. I see this as a sign that the AMS is sympathetic to the present difficulties faced by young mathematicians. The WWW address for the complete text of this announcement is: http://e-math.ams.org/web/general/cent-fellow.html On the subject of sympathy from the AMS, I noticed that there are cheap accomodations listed for the Orlando meeting. At San Francisco, members of the Committee on Meetings and Conferences (COMC) approached some young mathematicians inquiring what could be done to make national meetings more attractive to Young mathematicians. Offering cheaper accomodations was one suggestion. From roommate matching to publicizing cheaper alternatives to the official accomodations at meetings, Concerns has long pushed this issue. A consequence of this publicity and a receptive attitude in the COMC has resulted national meetings becomming more afforble. By the way, con anyone recommend any convenient, cheaper alternatives to AMS listed housing at any of the upcomming regional meetings? For example, earlier this week, the conference hotel for Greensboro had no vacancies. In our second article, Bob Bruner shares a bit of whimsy with us. We finish off with two readers' comments about the candidates' survey that we ran last week; Kalin Godev and Steve Kennedy share their perspectives with us. While on the issue of elections, I strongly urge you to vote. In past years some elections (e.g. AMS council) have been quite close. Last year, for instance, I believe that both Ben Lotto and Mark Winstead missed the mark, so to speak, by margins smaller than the number of graduate students at a typical State University. It is clear that the readership of this journal has the electoral power to ensure the offices of the AMS are held by sympathetic colleagues, if we mail in our pink envelopes before close of balloting. I want to finish with a call for submissions. A large concern for many of our readers at this time is their impending 1995-6 job search. I am certain that any information or points of view on the job process would be much appreciated, even if you feel it may have appeared here before. One topic that has not been aired on these pages is advice, or even anecdotes on how one manages a job search (or career) when one's spouse is also seeking a job (career) as a mathematician. What strategies have people tried; which have worked; is anything positive (job-wise) in being half of a `two-body problem'? Thanks, Frank Sottile (half of a two body problem) _______________________________________________________________ Item #2 American Mathematical Society Centennial Fellowships * Note New Eligibility Requirements * Invitation for Applications, 1996-1997 Deadline December 1, 1995 The AMS Centennial Research Fellowship program makes awards annually to outstanding mathematicians to help further their careers in research. Recently, the AMS Council approved changes in the rules for the fellowships. Previously, the fellowship program was aimed at mathematicians who were several years beyond the Ph.D. The changes adopted have the effect of redirecting the fellowship program toward recent Ph.D.s. The number of fellowships to be awarded is small and depends on the amount of money contributed to the program. The Trustees have arranged a matching program from general funds in such a way that funds for at least one fellowship are guaranteed. Because of the generosity of the AMS membership, it has been possible to award two or three fellowships a year for the past eight years. The deadline for receipt of applications is December 1, 1995. Awards will be announced in February 1996 or earlier if possible. For more information and application forms, write to the Executive Director, American Mathematical Society, P.O. Box 6248, Providence, RI 02940-6248, or send electronic mail to ams@ams.org. Please note that completed applications and references should not be sent to this address, but to the address given on the application form. _______________________________________________________________ Item #3 A Bit of Whimsy: In Mannix and Ross's article in the Oct. 95 Focus, they say: "In addition very small numbers of new Ph.D.s have entered government at any level to become future role models and voices at the table ..." I suddenly imagined every unemployed or underemployed mathematician and scientist running for Congress. What a breath of fresh air this would bring to the debate in this country (U.S.A.). Bob Bruner Dept of Math Wayne State University rrb@math.wayne.edu _______________________________________________________________ Item #4 Impotence of Fact in the Face of Blind Faith Kalin Godev When I helped found the YMN I knew that this organization will help set the facts about professional mathematicians and employment in Academia straight. It has done more than that. But there will always be people who chose to ignore the facts for a variety of reasons such as running for office, for example. (running for the Editorial Boards Committee) Mr. Andrew Granville's response to question #1 "... Do you believe, as these figures might suggest, that Ph.D.s are being over-produced?" begin quote No, I do not agree that mathematics Ph.D.s are being over produced. On the contrary Mathematics is designated an `area of national need' by the Department of Education and the nation desperately needs mathematicians to work at improving the scientific literacy of the nation. end quote Mr. Granville was never asked about what the DoE has designated math to be. He was shown the numbers from the AMS study and clearly asked to give an answer based on the presented numbers. He didn't. The fact that the DoE designates Math as an area of need has nothing to do with a Ph.D. who just spent 8 years working on C* Algebras and can't get a job because there are 1,100+ more applying for the same position. Clearly this particular Ph.D. is not needed, regardless of what the DoE says. The fact that Mr. Granville made a decision to ignore the statistics and continue to propagate a decade old Myth, when the market says otherwise, makes him, in my personal opinion, a poor choice to be on any of the AMS Committees. Kalin Godev kng@pro.nobis.com _______________________________________________________________ Item #5 Comments on the AMS Elections Steve Kennedy I carefully read all the statements of the AMS candidates for office in last week's Concerns of Young Mathematicians. I read the AMS statements that accompanied my ballot and the AWM statements in the September-October issue of the AWM Newsletter. I must admit to being encouraged by what I read. There seems to be near universal agreement that the employment problems of young mathematicians are a concern for the whole community and that the AMS should have some role in easing these problems. Now I have the problem of deciding how to complete my ballot. I look at the list of candidates for AMS Council seats and their statements and I am cheered by what I see. All are fine mathematicians and dedicated professionals, all are deserving of election, and there is not one whose election would disappoint me. How do I make my decision? For me it came down to the fact that I believe it is important to the profession that the policy-making bodies of the societies contain young mathematicians who will bring to the deliberations of these bodies a personal acquaintance with the special difficulties of establishing a mathematical career today. Thus, I think it particularly important that Curtis Bennett win election to the AMS Council. I believe that Curtis has distinguished himself as a representative of and an advocate for the interests and concerns of young mathematicians. He is one of the founders of the Young Mathematicians' Network, he has been the editor of this newsletter four times, he is one of its most frequent contributors, with at one time a bi-monthly column on professional development advice, he serves on the subcommittee of the Committee on the Profession dedicated to employment issues, he maintains the YMN sample grant proposal collection, he has lobbied the professional societies on a number of occasions on behalf of this Network, he is helping to organize a panel discussion to give advice to job-seekers at the Orlando meeting, and he has conducted three job searches in the nineties. In the deliberations of the editorial board of this newsletter, Curtis's voice has always been one of calm, clear-headed reason. Without him, I believe, this organization would have become more militant and, thus, much less effective. Last winter when the board decided that we had grown too large for our anarchical organizational structure to continue, we decided to create the position of Managing Editor and appoint Curtis to it. Given all this, voting for Curtis was an easy choice for me. For which other Council candidates should I vote? My choice was determined by the mathematical properties of the voting method used. The AMS uses the method of approval voting for the elections to the Editorial Boards and Nominating Committees, and a modified form of approval voting for election to the Council. In the past decade there has been a fair amount of research devoted to designing "fair" methods of tallying elections. Some of this research has been done by mathematicians and two of these mathematicians concluded "... AV [approval voting] is one of the most susceptible systems [of voting] to manipulation by small groups of voters ..." Rather than completely describing the mathematics, let me provide a small example of what they are thinking and give you a reference [1] for further reading. Suppose that there are six candidates on the slate, two are to be elected, and every voter gets to "approve of" up to two of the candidates. The candidates with the greatest number of approvals win. (This is the modified version of approval voting the AMS uses for Council seats, unmodified approval voting allows every voter to "approve of" any number of candidates up to the entire slate.) Suppose that there are exactly fifty voters, fifteen of whom belong to a special interest group. Let us call our six candidates B, C, D, E, F, and G and suppose that candidates C, D, E, F, and G all are very well qualified and well-represent the interests of the entire population. Further, suppose that candidate B is the heavy favorite of every member of the special interest group and that all voters outside the group rank him last. The election is held and the regular candidates, C, D, E, F, and G carve up the vote of the 35 voters not in the group absolutely evenly. That is, of the 70 approvals given by these 35 voters each of C, D, E, F, and G receives exactly 14 and B gets zero. B can still be elected, despite being the last choice of 70 per cent of the population, if the special interest group acts in concert and each approves of B, and ONLY OF B. This gives B 15 approvals to the 14 garnered by each of his competitors. If, however, 2 of the 15 group members decide to approve of candidate C, in addition to B, and 2 others approve of both B and D, then C and D are elected with 16 approvals, and B is defeated. I assume that the AMS uses approval voting so that small special interest groups can, by voting strategically, gain representation. The readers of this newsletter are such a special interest group and I think it quite important that our interests and concerns be represented on the AMS Council. I also think that the slate of Council candidates is so distinguished and so accomplished that all will win widespread support. And thus, as I contemplate my ballot, should I choose to approve of two or three or four of the other candidates in addition to Curtis, I fear that I will raise Curtis's target just as much as I advance him towards it. Therefore, while there are many fine individuals on the ballot for Council seats and it would be easy to "approve of" the allowed maximum of five, I intend to vote only for Curtis Bennett. If you agree that it is important to have a young mathematician representing the interests of young mathematicians on the Council, I urge you to do the same. Steve Kennedy skennedy@mathcs.carleton.edu [1] The interested reader should see Saari and Van Newenhizen, "The problem of indeterminacy in approval, multiple, and truncated voting systems," in Public Choice 59, 1988, pp. 101-120, et seq., for a mathematical (well-written, too) analysis of approval voting. The above opinions are those of the author, they should not be construed as representative of the opinion of the YMN board. _______________________________________________________________ Item #6 Closing Credits Charles Yeomans cyeomans@ms.uky.edu Mark Winstead mwwinst@bilbo.pic.net Nancy Wilson nwilson@stmarys-ca.edu Emil Volcheck volcheck@acm.org Frank Sottile sottile@math.toronto.edu Vic Perera vicum@math.ohio-state.edu Franklin Mendivil mendivil@math.gatech.edu Kevin Madigan madkev@aol.com Leigh Lunsford lunsford@math.uah.edu Steve Kennedy skennedy@mathcs.carleton.edu Matt Hudelson hudelson@pi.math.wsu.edu Silvia Heubach silvi@cinenet.net Greg Dresden dresden@fireant.ma.utexas.edu Bob Dobrow bdobrow@cs-sun1.nemostate.edu Lyle Cochran lcochran@fresno.edu Kevin Charlwood charlwk@snoopy.tblc.lib.fl.us Wendy Brunzie brunzie@mathfs.math.montana.edu Frank Arlinghaus frank@math.ysu.edu Edward Aboufadel aboufade@gvsu.edu _______________________________________________________________ End of Journal -- Next week: The Discussion Continues