On motivation and competence

A commenter to the previous blog post, Aravind asks the following question:

“From my experience of a KVPY interview, I understand that you look for motivation in candidates. How do you assess motivation? How much of it figures in the final score? And what about competence?”

Motivation and competence are strongly related. A high score on a school board exam displays a certain level of understanding of textbook content. But a competent student doesn’t just work to score high marks: she will spend time in thinking about what she learnt, would seek conceptual understanding over a mechanical one and will keep practicing an idea beyond what textbook exercises demand. This competence can only be developed if the student is motivated enough to think of the subject as something exciting and not something on a “to-do” list [1]. Regarding your other question of how one assesses these qualities, I am afraid there is no standard procedure: otherwise we would have coaching institutes training students for these interviews as well [assuming they don’t already exist].

If other readers of the blog have a more substantial answer to Aravind’s query, comments would be highly appreciated!

[1] I am not discounting the competence required to approach a to-do list in an organized manner and accomplish all items in it in a timely manner!

More on student interviews

Mathematics @ IISER Pune is all set to start an Integrated PhD programme in the coming autumn semester. We finished interviewing candidates for this programme today. Sharing some thoughts from being a part of this process:

1)   We interviewed candidates shortlisted through the NBHM entrance exams and/or the JAM exam (jointly conducted by IISc and IITs for admission into their MSc/Int. PhD programmes). The candidates were either in their final year of undergraduate proramme or had finished it last year.  When we asked the latter what they did in the last one year, many mentioned that they took coaching for JAM exam. I was very surprised that there now exist coaching institutes for MSc entrance exams! When we asked why they did not instead register for an MSc at their university, they mentioned that their university marks were lower than the cutoff and JAM coaching offered a better alternative.

2)   There were a couple of colleges (not the famous, elite ones, but those which would be ranked from middle to low at their respective universities) from where multiple students showed up. These students did very well at the interviews and displayed high levels of motivation. Seeing the enthusiasm of these students, it looks like some faculty at these colleges are definitely doing the right things (which possibly include identifying bright students, training/counseling them, informing them about available opportunities and organizing lectures by eminent mathematicians which would spark their interest.)

3)   I still have the concern mentioned before that there could be students who are very good, but cannot perform optimally at interviews due to nervousness, a wrong set of questions [although we made every possible effort to give them a fair chance based on their preparation] or other factors. I wish the selection process could be modified to minimize such cases (so that we don’t lose out students with potential), but have no idea how.

4)   If Indian institutes ever feel the need to organize faculty orientation programmes analogous to North American universities, these should include a session on conducting all kinds of student interviews.  We do this frequently (for example, KVPY, PhD, Int PhD etc) but even with the best of intentions, have no idea how hurtful or intimidating our behavior as interviewers can be to students.

PhD selection via interviews

This is the season of PhD admissions.  A lot of Indian institutes are conducting interviews for their PhD as well as Integrated PhD programmes and I regularly meet exhausted colleagues at the lunch table discussing how many students they have met since morning. 

I have often wondered about the method of selecting candidates at Indian institutes.  As a new faculty member in 2010, I naively believed that we should also follow a system similar to North American universities: rate candidates  “in a wholesome manner” by the NET/NBHM scores, university exam scores, statement of purpose and reference letters.  As is now obvious to me, there are at least three problems with this:

1)   We all know how reliable university exam scores are. 

2)   The concept of writing an SOP confuses most students, (who don’t get adequate guidance from their college/university professors.)  At IISER Kolkata, we used to ask students to submit a write up about their mathematical interests.  Most students would end up writing this at the reception in a very shaky handwriting while waiting for their interview call.  The others, who had written the statement at home, simply copied passages from famous books of G.H. Hardy, Paul Halmos etc.

3)   Reference letters also did not usually help.  Sometimes, we got very weak students with glowing reference letters.  On a couple of occasions, we had some students who answered a lot of questions very well, but had poor letters!  In some cases, the college lecturers thought reference letters were character certificates!  [Note: writing reference letters is a bit of a hassle because even in the age of email, most of our institutes (including the elite ones) do not accept letters online and ask students to get letters from their referees in signed and sealed envelopes.]

 In the given circumstances, interview seems to be the most suitable option in choosing candidates.  The reference letters and the SOP that the student brings along hardly play any role in the selection process and even the mark sheets are sought purely for official purposes.

 I have the following concerns about the interview procedure: 

a)    A lot of students get nervous and anxious during interviews.  They need a little more time to open up and feel comfortable.  Come to think of it: a nervous student enters a room full of stern-looking faculty members [1](the number could be anything between 4 and 8!) who hand him a chalk and ask him to start solving questions on the board.  There’s a good chance that this student is writing on a board for the first time.  The student may have difficulty understanding what a member is asking or may not be able to answer a particular question.  This makes him or her more nervous and as the rest of panel (with the best of intentions) starts giving hints to this student, the student loses the ability to focus on the problem and think straight.  Often, a friendly and more experienced faculty member is able to make the student feel comfortable.  At IISER Kolkata, we once had a student who suddenly started panicking and sweating.  One of the interviewers made him relax for a bit and asked him about his favourite actor.  This student brightened up as soon as the discussion veered to Shah Rukh Khan.  Next thing we knew, he was back on his feet and performed very well in the rest of the interview.  So, this problem is mitigated to some extent by friendly faculty members who can question students without intimidating them.

b)   Because of the above reason, some students require more time than the others.  So, it is difficult to stick to the same time period for all students.  But, there is an administrative issue that interviewing a student for x minutes and another one for x+10 minutes could potentially lead to questioning from students (or their parents!) and even RTI enquiries!! 

c)    In order for an interview to be effective, the questions have to be well thought out.  Sometimes panel members can ask questions which may be too hard or inappropriate for the interview.  Answering such questions may not necessarily reflect the abilities one is looking for.  I once heard of an incident in which a faculty member asked the student to state and prove a highly nontrivial theorem.  The student was unable to do so.  When others discreetly told this member that this question might be too hard, he staged a walkout in front of a nonplussed student.  On one occasion, when I was in a panel and was asking a simple question about convergence of sequences, another interviewer openly snubbed me and insisted that we ask “real” questions (which in his worldview meant questions about solving differential equations!)  As you can imagine, I had to exercise extreme self-restraint to not retort [2].   Interviews cannot possibly be of any use if they turn into pedantic discussions (or wars) among faculty about what is important and what is not.

Perhaps these problems are not very serious and can be avoided if faculty with a serious interest in the quality of PhD students come together and design the interview procedure properly.  If a sufficient number of faculty members volunteer, the interview panel can be carefully chosen to reflect all the foundational areas that the student needs to be tested on. 

I recently heard of an interesting initiative at IISER Bhopal.  They organized a workshop for a couple of weeks in which students attended lectures on topics that were well represented in the Mathematics group there.  This workshop was followed by interviewing interested participants for the Integrated PhD programme.  This not only introduced the students to the research specialties of the group, but also enabled them to interact with the faculty and feel comfortable during the interview. This helped IISERB to attract some strong and interested students in this programme.

Questions for blogosphere: do you think fine tuning the interview procedure would be a good way of selecting students? Or do you have other ideas?

[1] Despite our best efforts, I think Mathematics faculty end up looking stern most of the time :)  
[2] Even though I don’t dispute the importance of solving differential equations.

An upcoming move

I am very happy to share with you the news that I have recently been offered and have accepted a position at another "N" institute, and will be moving next semester.
Inspired by a comment left by an anonymous commenter long ago, my future institute will be henceforth referred to as New1[1].  My primary motivation to move to New1 is the tremendous opportunity that it provides for my academic growth.

Working at N1 has been a wonderful experience and I have always been very happy here.  But, I have had to take this difficult decision purely from the point of view of furthering my academic goals.  N1 and New1 share very similar philosophies and objectives and that is an added advantage.

I am feeling a lot of things right now. I feel excited about a new opportunity and I also feel sad at the prospect of moving away from some very close friends and dear colleagues. [This has been my plight since childhood - move from a place as soon as I begin to build personal connections there- sigh!  In the last six months at N1, I have made some really good friends here!]

But, what I feel the most right now is gratitude. I am grateful to New1 for expressing an interest in my application and processing it in a very timely manner, grateful to N1 for understanding my professional needs and granting the necessary approvals [2] very smoothly, grateful to all my referees for sending in their letters at very short notice and for always supporting me in all my endeavours.  My initial plan was to apply a few months later and to more than one place so that I could give my referees sufficient time to write.  However, once my former advisor and second postdoc mentor assured me that they will write for me as soon as needed, I decided to avail this very good opportunity presented by New1.  After this, I contacted two other referees who also promptly sent in their letters.

I am also very grateful for the professional courtesy and the positive vibes that I encountered  during my interaction with the chairperson, members of the selection committee and other faculty members during the visit to New1 for my job talk and interview.

Coincidentally, this week, I am at New1 for a conference.  I have met many future colleagues and they have been very friendly, warm and welcoming, this making me look forward to the move.

Finally, I am so grateful to be in India at a time when there are so many opportunities to build a science career at new places which want you and also the opportunity to contribute towards building these places.






[1] The other possible names could be N2, NN1 etc. But, I like New1 the most.
[2] Applications to move from one government institute in India to another have to go through proper channels.  Thus, I had to take approval from the director at N1 to apply to New1.  I truly appreciate his cooperation in this matter. 

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.