To have or to be

Most of us will agree that an established group in one's research area is a highly desirable attribute in a school where one hopes to work.  If such a group does not exist, it helps if the department concerned has a few senior professors with productive research programs.  These people, apart from maintaining a research-oriented and intellectually vibrant atmosphere, also provide leadership and much-needed guidance to the new entrants.

When you join a baby department of a very new institute, the presence of such people may not always be possible.  In my subfield, for example, there are only three research institutes in India with groups of  > 1 people.  As these places do not have undergraduate programs and I am a strong believer of the IIT/IISER/North American model of departments with both undergraduate and graduate programs, I did not have the luxury of joining an institute with readily available research collaborators.  Most of my colleagues are in a similar situation.  The institute provides us with all the professional support we need, but because it is itself very new, it cannot give us previously formed research groups.  In fact, it expects us, the newbies to get our research programs going and build the groups that we want.  In other words, it wants us to be what we cannot have.  

People looking at academic careers in India would want to keep this in mind and think about this issue carefully.  

For precisely these reasons, when I decided to join my current institute (following previous notation, let's continue to call it N1), I met with mild disapproval from some friends and colleagues and stern warnings from some senior colleagues from the O institutes that I was ruining my future (in general, people in India can be very direct in expressing their opinions and do not sugarcoat their words, especially when they talk to people younger to them, male or female.)   I respect their point of view (without agreeing with their forecast for my future).  Fortunately, the people whose opinions mattered the most, like my former PhD advisor and senior, experienced mentors through grad school and postdocs, encouraged me in taking this step. 

I have already explained in a previous post the various reasons why N1 was attractive to me: a highly supportive and dynamic leadership provided by the director and deans, efficient administration, friendly colleagues, absence of the politics imposed by the old boys network, flexibility to travel, but most importantly, the desire to build something from fresh along with other like-minded people.  

As my colleagues and I settle down into our new jobs, we have to grapple with the challenges and take concrete steps to "convert dreams into reality".  Before building up the department, we have to build up our own research programs and put them on a firm basis.  In this context, I've had to deal with the following issues (and I expect that a lot of people would have similar issues in this situation):

1) When I joined, I was in the middle of pursuing a research project, which was progressing slowly but surely.  This project was independent of my PhD work .  I personally saw this project as an important step in severing the umbilical cord with my PhD supervisor.  Within the first two months of joining N1, I seemed to have reached a dead end in this project and did not know how to proceed.  It felt like my mind was unable to think beyond a few ideas that really weren't going far.  I sorely felt the need to talk to someone in my research field and discuss this, but that was not a possibility.  Fortunately, I was able to take an entire semester off to visit a university in North America where I got a chance to discuss this with an expert in this field.  This has been immensely helpful, we have made a lot of progress on this project and we will be soon submitting our paper. 

N1 allowed me to take this "sabbatical" within a few months of joining and supported me in many ways ( my application for leave was promptly approved and I was also allowed to retain my house on campus).

However, it is not possible to hop over to North America frequently and for long intervals.  Once I return, I will have to actively form collaborations within India.  This might result in generating more visitors to N1 or hiring a postdoctoral fellow, which will also be good for the department.  Another way to avoid research deadlocks would be to expand my research interests a little and find common ground with other members in the department.  The institute seems to encourage this approach. 

2) On joining N1, I did not intend taking on a PhD student for the next two to three years.  This is clearly a very serious responsibility and I wanted to wait until my research program had developed more.  However, an interesting turn of events left me with no option but to accept a student much earlier than I thought I would.  Our department received a lot of PhD applications and the administration made it clear that since research was an integral objective of the institute, we had to start a graduate program without delay.  We ended up interviewing a large number of candidates, out of whom we shortlisted three. Let's call them A1, A2 and A3 in order of their scores.  The performance of these three students was good and it would have been cruel to turn down their application (not to mention that the administration would have seriously frowned upon us).  The research interests of A2 and A3  matched with colleagues who were ready to supervise students.  A1 was interested in my area.  The scores made it impossible for us to admit A2 and A3 without also admitting A1.  How can you reject a student whose past academic performance has been excellent, who has great reference letters and who does well in the interview?  Refusing him admission just did not seem right.

I consulted my former PhD advisor and other senior mentors who all unanimously told me that I should not shy away from supervising this student.  This student will start working with me in the coming semester.  I have a couple of projects in mind for him, but will wait to decide which one would be more suitable.  This is the story of my first "unplanned" grad student.

Moral of the story: in a country which has many more qualified and interested students than faculty willing or available to supervise them, newbies have to be ready to start supervising graduate students sooner than they had planned.  

3) While in North America, I was pretty visible on the conference circuit.  I had the good fortune of working with very nice people who not only taught be great science but also gave me the opportunity and necessary funding to attend a lot of conferences and talk about my work.  It was also much easier to travel to conferences within the same continent.  Now, back in India, I feel a bit concerned that it may not be as painless to attend international conferences.  In fact, my fear is that my geographical location will make it less probable for me to be invited to talk at these conferences and interact with potential collaborators.  

On the other hand, thanks to generous research funding by the Indian government, institutes now have more opportunities and resources to host international conferences within India.  

People planning to start academic careers in India should keep these issues in mind.  Joining a new institute is not for the faint-hearted.  We may not have all the resources that one takes for granted in an established set up.  However, this lack of resources is temporary and will not last long because funding is not the problem.  One simply needs to take the initiative to ask the management for things they need for their academic growth and work patiently along with the management to get what they need.  With some careful planning and a positive outlook on the part of its employees, there is no limit to the growth of an institute. 

But, not all people fit into or are willing to join such a set up.  I have some friends who would be very unhappy being in a place like N1.  They either already have positions in O type institutes, where they are doing very good work,  or are looking for such positions.

At the end of the day, we will be productive and will contribute our best to a department only if we are happy there.  The choice has to be made carefully but firmly, because once the decision is taken, there will be no time to look back.

On training students

A commenter on my previous blog entry enquired about the quality of graduate students in India,  a question which is fundamentally important for those planning a research-based academic career in India.
This issue merits a separate post.
Note for the reader: My take on this issue is entirely research institute/IIX* institute centric.  Also, much of what I say is based on personal experience and perception and is not necessarily backed up by statistical data.

First, let us briefly look at the different ways in which students in India aspiring to be scientists enter graduate study.

1) Right after high school, students enroll in one of the very strong 5 year Integrated MSc programs offered by the IITs, at the end of which they get a Bachelor's and Master's degree in their field of specialization.  The entrance exam for IITs, the famous JEE is very competitive and the strong and challenging course work at IITs adequately prepares students for pursuing a PhD**.  However, most students, after getting this degree typically go to top-tier research universities in North America or Europe for their PhD.  Starting 2006, the IISERs have also been offering integrated MS programs in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics and Earth Sciences.  ***

2) After getting a Bachelor's degree from one of the universities in India, students can join one of the IITs for a Master's program.  MSc programs offered by IITs are fairly strong.  Typically, students in these programs are enthusiastic and sincere.  However, their undergraduate preparation may not have been as strong as those of undergraduates at IITs **** and they have to essentially unlearn and relearn most of what they did in their undergraduate programs.  After MSc, many students pursue PhD abroad, but many also stay back and join one of the IIX institutes or research institutes for a PhD.  

3) After obtaining a Master's degree in one of the universities, students can apply directly for a PhD program at the institutes under consideration.  To be eligible for applying for a PhD program  in these institutes, candidates usually have to take the UGC/CSIR National Eligibility Test and qualify for a Junior Research Fellowship.  There are also other equivalent exams which are recognized by different institutes, for example JEST.  After this, most institutes will hold their own entrance exams or interviews for selecting their students. 

In the current scenario, a faculty member at a research/IIX institute in India will most probably supervise graduate students coming in from Categories 2 or 3 above.  One common underlying factor in supervising these students is that their previous university education may not have adequately prepared them for higher research.  Many of my colleagues, ranging from those at the top-notch institutes to those at the newer ones have agreed to this issue.   The deficiencies in undergraduate education in Indian universities is now a nationally recognized problem and one of the most important issues being addressed by higher bodies like the Indian Academy of Sciences.  

I have not yet supervised a PhD student.  However, as I look forward to supervising my first student in the coming semester,  I have been thinking a lot about these issues.  I have observed over the years the approach of my colleagues and erstwhile professors towards student supervision. Their approach would roughly fall into one of the two categories:

a) The visionary educator's approach: Recognize and accept this problem as it is.  To get around it, set very high standards for your students from Day 1, convince them that it is their responsibility to overcome the deficiencies in their preparation and extend full support to them in their endeavour to do so.   

b) The deadwood jerk's approach: Recognize this problem.  To get around it, either refuse to supervise students or torture the one student you have chosen to supervise by continuously reminding him or her about his or her lack of preparation, until the student quits.  If you happen to teach a graduate course, remind your hapless students all the time about how they are no match for the creamy layer who goes abroad.  Spend a few hours in your institute tea shop everyday complaining to colleagues about the mediocrity of students and everything else that is wrong with India.  After all, this is a perfect way to hide your own lack of productivity.

Many of my Indian readers will most probably identify at least one colleague/former instructor known to them who follows the second approach.   However, (fortunately) a new faculty member at a science institute in India today (especially at one of the new ones) does not have the option of following in those footsteps.  We are expected to actively supervise PhD students and train scientists urgently needed in a rapidly expanding knowledge-based economy and in a country where even institutes of the stature of IITs are struggling with a huge faculty shortage.

I strongly believe that students in categories 2 and 3 above are eager, willing and sincere, but may have been conditioned by a system over which they had little control.  It is to their credit that instead of succumbing to negativity and exhaustion, they have retained a desire to do science and if they have come this far, there is no reason why they won't go further if provided with encouragement, guidance and the necessary resources.


Footnotes
* IIX is a generic term which refers to IITs, IISc, IISERs etc.  I also include the Indian Statistical Institutes in this category.

** There's also the famous and competitive BStat program offered by the Indian Statistical Institute, whose graduates pursue research careers in the mathematical and statistical sciences in large numbers.

*** The first batch of the IISERs will graduate in 2011.  It is not clear yet what future course of action these students intend to take, but I will be writing about it in detail later.

****They are continuously reminded of this fact by their instructors, though I really don't see why students are to blame for this.

My job search story

I must warn the reader that this is going to be a long post. 

I am writing the story about how I found my current job in the hope that some reader out there might benefit from my experience and have a glimpse of what to expect during job visits to Indian institutes.  The main moral of the story: the job visits to my potential employers revealed much more than my first impressions and my final decision was based on factors and circumstances that I did not anticipate in the beginning of my search.

The job search begins

I started networking in India much before I entered the job market.  As soon as I obtained a PhD, in every trip to India, I would visit a few research institutes and give talks about my work.  This made me visible and also gave me the chance to figure out what kind of academic milieu I would best fit into: a purely research institute or an institute whose culture places equal importance to research and teaching.  I opted for the latter.  Based on various factors like the reputation of the institute and its location, I prepared a list of  Plan A schools and Plan B schools. I chose three places in Plan A, namely N1, O2 and O3 (N standing for New and O for Old).  I would immediately apply to Plan A schools and would move on to Plan B if nothing in Plan A materialized.  

Unlike North America, in India, applications are accepted throughout the year -hence I had the luxury of applying in different phases.

Before the interview     

While sending out applications, O2 was my first choice.  In terms of brand value, research tradition, student quality and quality of life, it appeared to be way ahead of all the other places. 

O3, on the other hand, though not as big a school as O2, is also very well known and has a research group with a non-trivial overlap with my research. 

I had never seriously thought about N1, but had applied anyways because it is situated in a city which I like very much and also because  Indian academic circles were buzzing with news about the rapid progress it had made since its inception.  

As I was applying, my preference was for O2, O3 and N1 in that order.   

Getting ready for the Interviews:

As soon as they received my application and letters etc, O2 invited me to visit them, but told me that they would only consider me for a visiting position instead of the regular position that I had applied for.  I was a little offended but decided to visit them and keep that as a back-up option just in case...

O3 was looking for a person with my research specialities, welcomed my application and invited me to visit.  This took the sting off O2's reply and I started to feel more confident about my prospects.  

N1's response is straight out of a dream.  The director himself wrote to me, and invited me to visit the institute, give a talk and spend time exploring the campus and interacting with faculty and students.  (Note: O2 and O3 invitation was specifically for job talks/interviews.  But, N1's invitation came across as being very warm and open, not to mention that it came straight from the director).  

At this stage, it wasn't clear to me what job I would like the most, but I was starting to get very excited about these interviews and at the prospect of returning to India.  

The Interviews

As per geographical and other constraints, my first interview was at O3, second at N1 (where I decided to stay for 4 days, taking full advantage of their generous invitation) and the last at O2. 

The interview at O3 went well and my job talk was well received.  The department chairperson and other members were friendly and showed me around the institute.  But, I was warned that their hiring procedure was much longer than what I had accounted for.  So, I came away with the impression that although it was almost certain that they will make me an offer, it was not clear when it would happen.  If I wanted this position, I would have to really, really wait.  

My next interview was at N1.  On the evening of my arrival, I was invited to have dinner with the director and a distinguished scientist who was visiting N1 at that time.  It was a most memorable experience. They both regaled me with stories from the 70s when they were just starting out as young assistant professors and how things were in India back then.  Both these scientists have contributed to building up several departments across India from scratch and  I was inspired by them.  The next morning, I had a formal meeting with the director and chairperson.  I was told about the objectives of the institute and what are the institute's expectations from my department.  Instead of asking me where I see myself in 5 years, they told me where the institute sees itself in the next few years!!  

The 4 days at N1 were wholesome and productive! In this period, I was given an exhaustive tour of the campus, spent time with my future colleagues and got a good understanding of the academic environment. 

I concluded my visit to N1 with the following impressions, 

a) Other than pursuing a research program, the institute expects its employees to play a strong role in service to the institute.

b) On its part, it will do its best to provide the necessary help to employees for their academic growth and personal well-being. 

c) Most people had procured generous seed grants to build up their labs and other research facilities.  

d) Faculty members, however junior, have immediate access to the director and the deans.  The functioning of the institute is highly democratic.

e) The institute has an efficient administration.  Requests made for purchasing equipment, library books etc and funding for organizing conferences are approved quickly. 

While leaving, I was told that the selection committee would be meeting within a week to discuss my application.

By this time, I had a great feeling about N1, but it was still not clear if I would prefer it over O3.  

O2 was my final stop before returning to North America.  When I arrived there, I was in for a big surprise:  I was now being considered for a regular position and not a visiting position as I was told before!!  I don't know what brought the sudden change in their attitude ( was it because other institutes were showing interest in me?) My interview and job talk went well  and I enjoyed the intellectually stimulating atmosphere.  But, their flip-flop confused and stressed me out.  Non-technical conversation with some members revealed some unfriendly and uncomfortable aspects of the department.   For example, the chairperson advised me to not respond to other offers before I hear from O2, which could take a couple of months. I did not agree with his assumption that I am so desperate for a job at O2 or that the other institutes are so dispensable.  I was also asked my marital status and was told that being unmarried would work in my favor.  I fail to see any logic in this sexist remark.  

Decision-making

All through the long flight journey back to North America, I waged a relentless battle between the head and the heart.  My gut feeling told me that N1 would be the best place for me.  Though still very new, it showed tremendous promise and the people there were positive, enthusiastic and honest.  No one there attempted to play mind games with me.  I was treated with respect and was given ample time to explore life on campus. Most importantly, at N1, I would get to play an important role in building up the institute.  On the other hand, O2 is indeed one of the best institutes in the country and I would have access to excellent facilities and resources.  But, clearly, at O2, I could not look forward to great inter-personal relations with colleagues.

Then there was the issue of timing.  N1 had assured me that I would be hearing from them within a week.  My options were to 

1) Accept N1's offer and end the uncertainty about my future that was driving me crazy.

2) Keep N1 on hold as long as possible and wait to hear from the other places. 

3) Accept N1's offer and withdraw my acceptance as soon as I get positive replies from O2 or O3.  

I immediately discarded the third option as highly unethical.  The second option was risky. Firstly, it would be disrespectful to keep N1 waiting too long before I took a decision.  It was not a matter of weeks, but months. I am sure that this behavior would not be tolerated even from the brightest star on the job market.  Secondly, is this how I treat an institute that treats me so well?  Thirdly, what if, after all this time, O2/O3, in a sudden change of circumstances decides not to make me an offer? This would put me in a very awkward position.

Back in my North American university, I consulted my trusted colleagues and friends.  Most of them had no opinions as they did not know anything about the academic culture in India.  Some suggested that going with option 2 would be acceptable in the North American scenario.  I did not have any close friends in India whom I could consult.  The academic community here is so small that I felt it would be best to keep things to myself.

After a lot of thinking, one thing was clear: for a successful academic career and personal happiness, I would have to take into account not just the brand-value of a place, but also the overall congeniality.   

N1 kept its word and made me an offer within a week.

By that point, I had made my decision.  I decided I would be better off in a start-up surrounded by supportive team players rather than a great, super-competitive department, where I would have to struggle and maneuver to create my place and where I could not count on much support from colleagues.  Perhaps, this was a decision taken more with heart than head, but I was happy with it.  So, I accepted N1's offer without delay.  I wrote cordially to O2 and O3 withdrawing my applications.  O2 wrote back a terse email congratulating me for my new position.  A few days ago, I met someone from O2 during a conference. He asked me (hopefully, in jest) why I cheated on O2 (in precisely these words).  I laughed off his question and changed the topic.  

O3 was more understanding and sent me their best wishes (and also asked me to keep them in mind for the future if needed, a gesture which I appreciate).

The joining letter from N1 arrived within 15 days of my accepting their offer.

Aftermath

I am about to complete a year at N1 and have not regretted my decision so far.  I was welcomed with open arms and the institute gave me tremendous support to settle down and adjust to the nitty-gritty of Indian life.  My request for funds to organize a winter school for undergraduate students was approved within an hour and we successfully organized this highly successful event, attended by students from all over India.  The institute has been very supportive of my professional needs and has given me the flexibility to travel for the purposes of collaboration.  Like all my colleagues, I am valued for who I am and appreciated for my service to the institute.  I have been alloted a sweet little house on campus. Recently, the registrar's office also gifted me a bicycle to facilitate my smooth commute in the campus, which is spread over six kilometres.  

Thanks to N1, I have fallen in love with India all over again.  

I would love to hear back from readers (from all over the world)  about the main factor that made them choose their current jobs ( was it academic, personal or a balance between the two?)  Did they also contend with factors that they were not aware of while applying? How much importance did they give to the non-academic aspects of their department?

Another somewhat related question: Were you ever asked about your marital status during a job interview? How did you/would you respond if this had happened/were to happen to you.