Birth, growth, collapse and renewal

Professor Nirmala Jain is a retired professor of Hindi literature from Delhi University, and a well-known literary critic.  A few days ago, after reading her commentary on some well-known Hindi writers (such as Krishna Sobti, Usha Priyamvada and Mannu Bhandari), I was curious to learn more about her own literary journey.  Her autobiography, "Zamane Mein Hum" is a detailed memoir of her life, covering her childhood (she was born in the early 1930s), her long academic career at Delhi University, and her literary associations. I started reading the book in earnest during recent travel, and it gave me an opportunity to reflect on personal resilience in the midst of unrelenting family struggles, the twists and turns of an academic journey, and the joy of being part of an academic ecosystem abundant with talented, purpose-driven scholars. Her journey also provides a glimpse into academically vibrant institutions with great potential devolving into uninspiring workspaces that no longer fulfill that potential. This is the story of many universities in India.

Professor Jain was among the cohort of lecturers who started teaching at Lady Shriram College in the year of its inception, 1956. She spent 14 years at the college. Her interview for the position was chaired by its founder, Lala Shriram, the owner of Delhi Cloth Mills, who also carefully mentored the institution in its early years. She witnessed the change of campus from a small school in Darya Ganj to its current location in Lajpat Nagar with its iconic red building and 55 pillars. She describes the efforts that the faculty members put into the academic training of their students (who came from diverse socio-economic backgrounds) and in creating an atmosphere that fostered wholesome growth encompassing the arts and culture. 

This part of her memoir was fascinating to me for two reasons.  My undergraduate education was completed at Lady Shriram College (LSR).  The college provided a safe, nurturing space for three years to study and reflect on the way forward.  As I entered the college gate every morning after a long, tiring commute from Noida, the red building and its 55 pillars represented a welcoming space that manifested everything positive in my life at that point [0].  A couple of years after graduating, I read the novel "Pachpan Khambein Laal Deewarein" (translation: 55 pillars and red walls) by Usha Priyamvada [1], who was also among the new faculty members who had joined the college. In the world of this novel, however, these pillars and walls symbolized the emotional suffocation of the protagonist. "How could the author not see this space as the intellectually stimulating space that I experienced", my younger self wondered [2]. On the other hand, Professor Jain's narrative was closer to how I viewed the institution, a space that provided its members the resources and opportunities to grow and find their way forward. 

The other reason why I enjoyed reading this part of her story is because it resonated with my experience of starting a faculty position at a new institution.  I joined IISER Kolkata (and later, IISER Pune) in their early years, and saw many transitions of the kind that she describes at LSR.  At a new institution, faculty members have to work with limited resources and often have to take up roles well beyond the purview of the classroom in order to contribute to institution-building [3]. Just as the young Nirmala Jain and her colleagues benefited from mentoring and encouragement by Lala Shriram and other institution builders, we were fortunate to be mentored by inspiring academic leaders such as Professor Ganesh and Professor Shashidhara through tough academic phases (individual as well as institutional). The birth and growth pangs of a new institution intermingled with our personal quest for scientific and intellectual growth.  Reading this part of the memoir revived memories of the journey of the IISERs in the early years. 

The later part of the memoir starts to get sombre. We now start reading stories about the downslide of institutions when a handful of people acquire disproportionate power and start putting themselves above the institution. We read about bureaucratic shenanigans by academics to hurt colleagues who have demonstrated higher scholarly merit, and situations where students try to acquire academic benefits through "extracurricular" means, overlooking the importance of individual, focused effort at the study table. Professor Jain lived through an era which saw the degeneration of many Indian universities into living nightmares. The early phases of this degeneration were also observed by Harivansh Rai Bachchan (a distinguished poet and a professor at Allahabad University who later quit academia) in the third volume of his autobiography. Professor Jain saw institutions in various phases: birth, growth, collapse and renewal. Her memoir presents the story of Delhi University from her point of view. Thanks to her own academic preparation, intellectual curiosity and association with the leading litterateurs of the day, she worked to keep the academic culture of her department alive and thriving. For example, dedicated teachers organized regular conferences and seminars to ensure that students and department members were exposed to distinguished poets and writers who were leading significant literary movements in their times.

The coming up of institutions such as the IISERs, new Central Universities, new IITs and NITs represents a promising phase in science and education in our country (similar to what the older universities represented in the earlier part of the 20th century). The later part of Jain's memoir makes us reflect on what keeps an academic culture flowing and growing versus the attitudes/actions that have the opposite effect. Can we continue with the resolution and clarity of vision to put academic excellence above all else? Can we support and nurture academic potential in ourselves, our colleagues and students? Can we show up every morning to our work with a sense of wonder, and a commitment to give it our best? 

[0] It's a different matter that I had to walk across this part of the building into a darker, less inspiring section where the mathematics classes were conducted.

[1] The pen-name of Professor Usha Saxena-Nilsson, who later worked at Allahabad University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

[2] I learnt to appreciate that no author is obliged to represent something exactly as I view it, even if the topic is close to my heart :-)

[3] For example, folklore has it that Professor Ambika, one of our earliest faculty members at IISER Pune who also served as dean (academics), personally intervened to wake up students who slept late and were at the risk of missing their exams.

Movers and Shapers - II

[The first past of the following post can be found here.]

Starting a new faculty position is no joke.  Books have been written on it, it is a hot topic on multiple blogs/websites (for example, see here and here) and many institutions conduct orientation programmes for new faculty.  You have become a PI with complete responsibility for your research group, you are on the other side of the class for the first time and you are performing a lot of laborious administrative tasks.  Joining a new institute where you will move labs/offices at least three or four times (either move from one building to another or readjust within the same building as new members join at high frequency) adds further layers of complications.  Even with the best of planning, things can go wrong.

For example, at IISER, through the “moving and shaping,” all sorts of difficulties came up.  There were delays in ordering material and in clearing customs.  Sometimes, enzymes thawed and were refrozen during transport: this caused unexpected results in experiments!  There were sudden pressures, for example, preparing a lab (practically overnight) for a new batch of students.  Sometimes, after a move, people would realize that the power requirements were much higher than anticipated.  Sometimes, there would be water shortage.  In a new building, there could be unforeseen damages due to heavy rainfall.  With many members sharing limited space, there would occasionally be differences and vocal exchange of views. 

All colleagues I spoke to acknowledged setbacks.  But, every single one of them also insisted that they do not retain any bitterness about it.  Many felt that their efforts towards meeting personal research goals created positive energy and this helped them to see difficult experiences as enriching.

M. Jayakannan from Chemistry (joined. 2007) mentions that by the summer of 2009, labs were sufficiently equipped for active research work at IISER.  The first few publications from work done at these labs started coming out by 2010 and since then, all the research groups in chemistry have been productive.  The early faculty hires were very active in publishing, averaging about 4 papers per group every year.  This gave confidence and healthy peer pressure to those who joined later.

My colleague Thomas Pucadyil joined the Biology group in 2010.  As of today, Thomas has a thriving research lab that includes 8 student members. Recently, a publication from his lab, “A high-throughput platform for real-time analysis of membrane fission reactions reveals dynamin function,” authored by Srishti Dar, Sukrut Kamerkar and Thomas Pucadyil has appeared in Nature Cell Biology. 

During a fun conversation over a cup of coffee, Srishti (the first author of this paper and one of Thomas’s earliest PhD students) and Thomas described how they set up the lab and the “assay system” leading to this publication.  For Thomas, the experience of starting his lab with students was full of surprises.  It  required multiple managerial skill sets, which he acquired on-the-go.  Early preparations for this work were started in Sai Trinity Building in 2011: this included visiting a goat market and slaughter house one early morning to acquire the brain of a goat.  They started off with an attempt to extract and isolate a specific protein from the goat brain.  While at Sai, they succeeded in it and knew that their project had passed the litmus test.  This motivated them to develop assays that would help to better streamline the role of this protein in facilitating cellular processes.  A detailed explanation of their work can be found here.

Thomas feels that the composition of his graduate-student-heavy lab played a crucial role in choosing and persisting with this project.  With postdocs, one tends to get results sooner, but postdocs are only present for a short stint.  On the other hand, graduate students are present for a much longer time and this gives you more room to experiment and set something up. In this case, their project took more than three years to develop and the results finally started coming together in 2014.  By this time, they had gone through two relocations, first to G1, a prefabricated lab building in the permanent campus in 2012 and the second, to the main building in 2014.  Their lab is now well settled with its core facilities in place and work done by his group has exceeded the expectations of the institute.

Thomas feels the strong camaraderie among the biologists helped him to move beyond the challenges and establish himself at IISER Pune.  Similar sentiments were expressed by others.  Girish Ratnaparkhi, one of the master planners behind the multiple relocations of the Biology group, mentions that when he joined, he felt energetic and very happy to help.  He remained very involved with the functionality of the department.  Be it preparing indents, supervising the packing and moving, receiving/hosting institute guests or organizing a conference, no work was shunned.  Everything was done in the spirit of service to the institute.

Talking to these colleagues made me wonder: can such an attitude of positivity and service to the institute be developed superficially? Or is it something that stems naturally from a deeper feeling of personal empowerment, which in turn comes from research productivity?

Movers and shapers - I

Last week, I got an opportunity to talk to some of my colleagues from Biology and Chemistry who joined between 2006 and 2008, that is, within the first two years of IISER.  The people I spoke to are H.N. Gopi, M. Jayakannan, Mayurika Lahiri and Girish Ratnaparkhi.  They shared some fascinating stories from these early days: stories of adjustment, setting things up, moving, expansion and readjustment.  This post and the next are based on their inputs. 

IISER started functioning from one floor of NCL Innovation Park in 2006.  Due to limited space, several faculty members shared what they call “hot desks” in the same office.  From 9 am to 6 pm, they designed curricula, taught classes (many for the first time), cleaned and prepared teaching labs themselves as there were no lab attendants, made purchase indents for lab equipment and held regular meetings to design their future labs/offices.  After dinner, many returned for a “second shift”, during which they corresponded with their collaborators or students from former work places, wrote papers and made grant applications [1].  The second shift could continue into the wee hours of the morning.

People could walk into our director Professor Ganesh’s office anytime they needed to [2].  Many a times, they would enter feeling worried, but would come out of the office with a big smile sharing his dreams about the future of IISER.

Professor Shashidhara (Shashi) walked from his place of residence in Panchwati to the permanent campus, Innovation Park and Sai Trinity Building every single day to oversee the progress at each point (and give things a good push whenever needed).  He patiently taught new faculty members from scratch how to work through administrative rules and regulations for acquiring equipment and setting up labs as many were fresh out of postdocs and were doing it all for the first time. 

When a potential faculty candidate visited for a job interview in those days, it was easy to get discouraged at the state of affairs: no research labs, no offices and no PhD students.  Apart from generous start-up grants, some of the things that attracted the early people to join were clear communication from the leadership about future plans, love of teaching and personal ambition.  The sense that they were building the institute and were equal contributors to every stage of development gave them a feeling of personal empowerment.  My colleague Mayurika mentions, “When I first visited for my job interview in 2007, I only saw the floor at Innovation Park and empty spaces in Sai Trinity building [3].   Shashi told me that things would be ready before I joined and I instinctively believed him.  Sure enough, things were ready by the time I joined in March 2008.  I did not feel any negativity around me. ” 

The central wing of the Sai Trinity building was inaugurated in January 2008 and was adequately ready for the biologists within a couple of months.

That was the time when experimental faculty had to spend maximum time in acquiring equipment for the labs. While doing this and allocating lab spaces, they decided upon a few healthy practices, which continue till date: first was the practice of shared labs.  Except a handful of cases where the nature of research is highly specialized, spacious common labs were to be shared by multiple members.  This not only reduced wastage of resources, but also taught faculty to treat resources as shared facilities rather than individual possessions.  As a colleague puts it jokingly, the tendency to act as “estate builder” was cut off right at the beginning.  Second was the practice of looking ahead: in any lab, some extra space was kept aside for future faculty.  When people ordered equipment and material for themselves, they ordered in extra quantities so that a new faculty would have enough workspace and resources to get started immediately upon joining.  This was very crucial because the Sai Trinity years witnessed a burst in hiring. 

In the meanwhile, the right side of the Sai Trinity building was acquired for chemistry and the chemists started moving there.  At one point of time, 11 faculty members and 40 students shared a lab space of 1800 square feet.

Around that time, Biology and Chemistry started looking for suitable PhD students.  The first advertisement for PhD went out from Chemistry in January 2008.  There would be at least three more rounds of advertisement and selection procedures before 4 students were selected in July 2008.  Biology also got their first few PhD students in August 2008.  These students took course work for a year and also actively helped with setting up the labs in Sai Trinity building.  By summer of 2009, the labs were well equipped and ready for active research.  Publications based on work done at IISER started coming out by 2010.

One of the reasons my early colleagues did not cave in to disappointment or exhaustion from frequent moves is that from the very beginning, no one lost sight of the final product, the permanent campus.  Gopi describes the happiness they felt while they witnessed the official land transfer of the permanent campus land to IISER in a ceremony at Pride Hotel in 2008: “We knew this informally, but were really thrilled when we saw it happening officially.”  Jayakannan mentions that even before all the moves across temporary locations happened, they started planning for the permanent campus.  Sometimes, they would wear construction hats and spend time at the construction sites.  “We adjusted to what was available with belief and sense of involvement in what was to come.  The institute always came first.”

But, Girish has a simpler explanation for the (more or less) high spirits: “Nothing big broke during the moves.  This kept everyone happy.”

[Stories of further moves and other groups coming up in future posts.  The second part of this post is here.]

[1] It would be a while before publications started coming out from work done at IISER. 

[2] We still can: it’s just that we don’t need to do so all that much anymore.  I only discovered the location of the director’s office last month, when a group met there to plan our 10 year celebrations.

[3] An office complex in the heart of Pashan, which was to remain our temporary campus for a long time.

Life begins at 10

Today morning, while working through some calculations done by a PhD student towards her project, I rewound 10 years ago to the end of 2005, when I was in the final year of PhD.  I had my task cut out that winter: start writing the first draft of thesis, prepare CV and research statement and apply to about a 100 places for postdoctoral positions.  As I carried package after package to the post office in the dreary winter (many places were still not accepting online applications), I speculated about where I would go next, next after the next and where in India could one apply.  I liked my grad school very much and hoped to eventually work at such an institution, one that is not just a (research) institute or a (teaching) university, but a combination of both [1].

At around the same time, the scientific advisory committee to the Prime Minister of India and the Ministry of Human Resource Development in India were taking concrete steps to lay the foundations of five such science institutes in India, namely the IISERs.  Two among these IISERs, IISER Kolkata and IISER Pune, started their academic programmes in August 2006 and are now in their tenth year.  Thanks, therefore, to a perfect combination of right opportunities and right timing, I am now based at IISER Pune, an institute that has given me everything I hoped for in a faculty position [2].

For a young institute, a decade is a good time to celebrate its accomplishments, reflect on future directions and engage with the larger public about its values, purposes, science and education.  My colleagues (especially the ones who joined in the very early years) have seen the development of our campus from a desolate, unused piece of land into a beautiful, fully residential campus, whose view they can enjoy every morning from their balconies with a cup of coffee.   

In a series of upcoming blog posts, I hope to document various important milestones in the growth of IISER Pune, memories of colleagues, alumni and current students from earlier years as well as  perspectives on where we are headed.  I will also update you about various programmes that we are organizing in the coming year to celebrate our tenth birthday.  Stay tuned.

[Update: the first post in the 10 year series can be found here]


[1] A place with mild winters would be an added bonus.
[2] This includes life in a city with not just mild winters, but also mild summers.

A meeting with the Prime Minister

There have been reports in the media of a meeting of the Prime Minister with around 30 scientists at his residence on 19^th August.  This blog is about my experience and impression of that meeting as (possibly) the youngest person present in it.  As the meeting was organized by the Department of Biotechnology, I thank Professor VijayRaghavan for this truly awesome opportunity. 

Disclaimer 1:  This post is not meant to be a comprehensive report about the event (one can read the news reports for that), but solely my own perception of how it played out.  A lot of it is from memory and some hurried notes I took during PM’s speech: so, I can only paraphrase his statements and not quote them verbatim.

Disclaimer 2: This is going to be a long post.

Although I am not very interested in politics, I have been very curious about Modi government’s thoughts and policies on science in India.  Sadly, be it mainstream or social media, our intellectual elite or journalists, the discourse on anything related to our Prime Minister seems to fluctuate between two extremes: one side considers him as the savior who will solve all of India’s problems in no time and the other side is extremely critical and suspicious of him.  It is very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in reading prevalent opinions.  At the same time, as a scientist at a new institute, I cannot help but notice the pressure under which our administration is functioning due to severe budget cuts.  Are the current science funding policies of the government formulated with a view to control the overall government expenditure across the economy or does it have something to do with how high (or low) they place science on their priority list? How does the present regime view science, science in India and the scientific community?  These are questions to which I have been unable to get reasonable answers through our biased (and may I add unscientific) media discourse.  Therefore, when I received an invitation to attend this meeting, I was very excited at the possibility of meeting the Prime Minister and hearing directly his views about science in India.

The agenda of the meeting had been designed carefully.  The PM wanted a discussion on the current state of Indian science and from what I understood in a smaller preparation meeting before we headed out to RCR, he had conveyed his eagerness to hear diverse viewpoints.  The secretaries of the science ministries (mostly scientists themselves), therefore, were to play a moderating role and let the other invitees from the science community do most of the talking.

Around 14 people, representing various fields of science, were to give presentations about the progress made and challenges ahead in their respective domains of expertise.  The meeting was to be conducted for two hours and therefore, speakers were requested to respect the time limitations so that there could also be adequate time for discussion.  Before heading out to RCR, some of the invitees wondered if the PM would be able to follow the numerous presentations and if someone should further summarise the main points of the speakers at the end.  As it turned out, however, Mr. Modi not only listened attentively to each and every presentation, but also kept asking very pointed questions from almost all the speakers.  For instance, when the first speaker presented data about the number of research papers that were published in India every year, Mr. Modi immediately asked how big or small this number was, in proportion to our population.  The very low number of scientists in our country was briefly discussed.  

As the presentations continued, he made several remarks, but I only remember a few.  For example, one of the speakers mentioned that in India, once a faculty member becomes a full professor, the only further possible ``promotion” beyond that is to become a senior level administrator.  This hinders research productivity and he therefore suggested that we create more positions, equivalent to VCs/directors etc, but in which one would only do research.  The PM caught on to this suggestion and requested the speaker to prepare a detailed proposal.  There were several other talks on topics including biomedical research, agricultural research, research in universities, physics, mathematics, research in industry and research in the north east. 

My personal favourite was Professor Spenta Wadia’s talk on physics, in which he beautifully outlined, in simple language, India’s recent contributions to several areas like string theory, high energy physics, condensed matter and materials science, statistical physics and physical biology[*].  I also liked Professor Gagandeep Kang’s talk on biomedical research.  Prof. Mythily Ramaswamy gave a talk on mathematics.  

(* A previous version of this blog post just mentioned string theory.  This is because (as I have stated in the disclaimer), I was writing from (limited) memory and in no way did I mean to imply that he only talked about string theory!  As a mathematician with an interest in modular forms, string theory stayed back in my memory.)

Among his many questions, Mr. Modi had one for mathematicians: he wanted to know if mathematics could solve the problem of call drops in mobile conversations!  Later, when the presentations got over, I made a comment about applications of cryptography and coding theory in communication problems, but that this field is underrepresented in most Indian institutes [please see addendum below for the mathematics behind call drops].  It was only after returning home that I came to know from my brother that the issue of call drops is, in fact, a very contentious issue nowadays and has also been raised in the parliament. 

In most presentations, the presenters explained and emphasized the need for sustained funding in science if we were to continue the progress and not slide backwards. 

After the presentations were over, it was time to elicit comments from the rest of the audience: by this point, we ran out of time.  But the PM continued to listen to the comments and personally called out the names of people who indicated that they wanted to speak  (either his vision is very strong or he had the seating plans laid out in front of him!). 

Since it was well beyond 6 pm, I thought with some disappointment that he would leave and I would not be able to hear his views on science issues in India.  But, he did speak, and from that point, Modi, the orator, took over.

 After addressing us as ``Aap Diggaj Log,” he started his talk with the observation that we cannot make much progress in the current scenario.  The lack of  openness between the cabinet and scientists as well as overwhelming administrative regulations hindered science.  He recognized that research needs flexibility, and while there had to reasonable checks and balances, one could not expect scientists to keep, in his own words, ``pai pai ka hisaab.”   This generated some laughter and applause.

The next point he made was that there was a lot of overlap between the work done by different science agencies, which do not communicate adequately with each other and are unable to work towards common scientific goals of the nation.  He emphasized, as the news reports mention, that instead of working in isolation, scientists have to come together and take a multidisciplinary approach to solving problems.

One point that the PM kept making repeatedly was that the solutions to most of the problems, be it coordination of resources or addressing specific needs of the nation such as Swachh Bharat, cleaning the Ganges, low agricultural productivity, the contradictory problems of malnutrition and food wastage, better utilization of solar energy, the solutions would have to come from the scientists and not the bureaucracy.  ``Can you do it?” he asked us directly.

He also made some remarks about a disconnect between writing research papers and translating the research into technology.  One of the examples he mentioned was why agricultural research has not addressed the problem of poor yield of pulses in India. 

Towards the end of his speech, he said that he has noted our complaints to him: those of science policy, budget and administration.  But, he too has a complaint, namely the scientific community is not broadminded about optimum sharing and utilization of resources.  His wish list for us was sensitivity to India-specific problems, better coordination among science workers and a multidisciplinary approach. 

 All in all, I certainly understood the PM’s attitude towards science better than before.  It was heartening to note his awareness of science challenges in the country and that his thoughts on science are not restricted to Ganesha and plastic surgery, as many journalists would have us believe.  But, I am writing as an assistant professor whose research work is mostly of a solitary nature and who does not have to deal (much) with administration and bureaucracy.  People in positions of responsibility, who deal directly with the consequences of budgetary cuts and lack of a coherent science policy would have higher expectations of this meeting and its consequences. 

Speaking personally, I came back with a strong feeling that this government perceives the science community as underperforming and wants it to produce more.  Therefore, it is absolutely essential for us early career scientists to keep improving our performance so that we do not feel unempowered in front of any administrator or bureaucrat.  For a scientist, empowerment comes only with productivity.

  -----------------------------     

Addendum: 

My comment is not entirely accurate.  Professor Vijay Chandru (Co-founder and Chairman, Strand Life Sciences), who was also present at the meeting, pointed out the following in a private correspondence:

``While cryptography and coding theory are at the foundations of computing and fault tolerant communications, the problem of call drops is driven more by cellular transmission capacities (# of cell towers and energy considerations) and protocols for handoff between cells. 

The multiple co-existing cellular technologies GSM, 3G, LTE would also add a layer of complexity. I believe the math disciplines involved would be more like stochastic dynamical systems and congestion modelling.

Anurag Kumar, D. Manjunath and Joy Kuri have authored a nice book “Wireless Networking” that makes these connections."

What makes the work place work (for a mathematician)?

A few days ago, Abi's blog pointed to a very interesting article about serious steps being taken by premier institutes in India to attract faculty and bridge the huge gap between sanctioned versus existing faculty numbers.  This includes providing new faculty with high start-up grants needed to set up labs, streamlining hiring processes, and creating opportunities for spousal employment (especially at institutes where location might cause a disadvantage).

At around the same time, I came to know that 4 new mathematicians had been hired at IISER Pune.  They will be increasing not only our numbers, but also the research specialities represented by the Maths group here.  This made me wonder: How is it that new institutes like IISER Pune have managed to build a promising and vibrant Mathematics community while several institutes seriously struggle to even get Mathematics faculty to apply, leave alone join? Is it merely because Pune has a location advantage or are the reasons far deeper?  If a mathematician were to write an article along the same lines as the ET article mentioned above, what factors would they consider important to attract Mathematics faculty (especially at a new institute)? ``Huge" start-up grants are not such an important issue because most of us don't need to set up labs. How does an institute attract and retain its mathematicians?

While many of a mathematician's requirements overlap with those of faculty in other sciences, a few of these requirements are more crucial (in my opinion, make or break for new institutes) for Maths.  Being at IISER Pune, I can't help but write about how this institute in particular has reached out to its Mathematics faculty and has fostered an overall sense of professional satisfaction.  I hope that this post will lead to a healthy discussion about what makes an academic work place work for the people who join it.

Firstly, a key factor that can propel the growth of a baby department is the presence of accomplished researchers who can provide a leadership and mentoring role to it.  In a country where even established institutes are short of Maths faculty, this may be wishful thinking for new institutes.  However, even if a new department has one such accomplished researcher, they can attract more people to apply. In many ways, they become the face of the department.  One good hire leads to interest in the department from more job candidates, the department gets a pool of strong applications and soon starts to build non trivial research groups in diverse areas.  Such a person becomes a bridge between the institute-level administration (director, deans etc) and younger faculty members in the department.  Their strength in research as well as leadership abilities inspires the confidence of the younger faculty and the respect of the admin.  These mentors, being Mathematicians themselves, can understand the needs of Maths faculty better, the faculty can unhesitatingly put forward their requirements or concerns or suggestions to them and  they become effective channels to convey these points to the senior administrators. This is particularly important for Mathematics because some of its needs and practices with respect to publishing etc are different from others and this often needs to be convincingly conveyed to senior administrators.
Of course, several new departments are functioning without such mentors. At these departments, younger faculty members are entrusted with such a role.  Faced with the task of building up their research programmes and play a leadership role, they work very hard to do so (even with their very limited experience), but I believe that someone who has more experience and has already built a strong research programme will be much better able to undertake such a role.

Secondly, the library plays the same role for a mathematician that a laboratory plays for an experimentalist.  Whenever a prospective Maths job candidate visits an institute, invariably, one of the first few things that they want to know about is the library.  Many candidates even choose to spend a couple of hours at the library during their job visits and I know of some institutes which even schedule this as part of a candidate's job visit.  While talking to departmental members, they have questions about which journals or book series the library subscribes to and how easy is it to order new books or journals for the library.  This single factor plays a huge role in ensuring the professional satisfaction of Maths faculty.  While it is great to have electronic access to journals or books of their choice, the ideal situation would be to also have them in hard copy. Mathematicians often come up with research ideas while in the library. They don't necessarily visit the library to gain access to a particular book or journal: instead they browse through shelves (somewhat like what people do at bookstores), pick up a journal volume or book that catches their interest and often come up with good questions or ideas while going through its contents.  That is why many Mathematics departments at universities across the world have their own libraries and members are given unrestricted access at any time of the day or night on any day of the week.  While this may not be immediately possible at new institutes (due to shortage of space), recognizing the central role that a library plays for a mathematician and giving members the freedom and opportunity to order books and journals in a smooth and timely manner is a great start!

Thirdly, it is very important for mathematicians to attend conferences/workshops/ seminars on a regular basis.  Almost all job candidates have queries about travel grants for national and international travel, flexibility to attend conferences during term time and so on. This applies to all sciences and has been addressed in many articles (including the one mentioned above) - so, I need not elaborate upon it too much.  However, some comments: Pune's closeness to Mumbai and therefore easy accessibility to conferences and short-term research programmes organized at TIFR and IIT Bombay undoubtedly played some role in attracting the first few Maths faculty members to IISER Pune.  The rules and procedures to attend scientific meetings, claim travel reimbursement etc (especially with respect to balancing central government regulations about airlines with Pune airport's scheduling constraints) are very smooth and faculty-friendly here [1].  Also, I have mentioned before that the Mathematics department here is provided with resources and tremendous administrative support to organize conferences.  The recognition by the institute of the importance of such meetings for Mathematicians was one of the factors that motivated me to apply here.

Finally, an important question that a mathematician asks is if his/her department is treated like a service department to the other departments (for example, in terms of course work etc- is there a good variety of Maths courses for students interested in learning Mathematics or does the institute only wish to offer a limited number of Math courses aimed primarily at teaching mathematical techniques required for other disciplines?)  Or, is the department considered an independent and integral part of the institute? Also, does the leadership play merely a critical role or a critical as well as a facilitating role for the department?  Answers to these questions can eventually determine if an institute can attract and retain its mathematicians.

Here's a simple example:  let's say that a Maths department at an institute has a much smaller number of PhD students than other departments.  A critical leadership will simply question the competence of the faculty and will pressurize them to take more students.  However, a critical and facilitating leadership will not talk about the numbers, but of the faculty-to-PhD student ratio.  It will take steps to increase the number of faculty members in the department in diverse research areas and therefore foster an environment in which it will be feasible for the department to have a full fledged PhD programme with higher number of students.

Finally, let me pen down some non-academic factors (which apply to all faculty) which can make for a very faculty friendly workplace.  When I joined IISER Pune, I noticed that in order to overcome the disadvantages of a campus still under construction, the institute had made some key arrangements for the benefit of their employees.  For example, since campus housing is not yet ready, we have to find an apartment outside.  However, the lease is signed by IISER Pune - this one step prevents a lot of inconvenience.  Many house owners prefer to rent out to a central government organization.  IISER also pays the advance deposit which is a non-trivial amount and issues all rental cheques directly to the owner.  Secondly, since many of us were operating from the temporary campus and classes were held at the permanent campus, there was a fleet of five buses plying students and faculty between campuses. If needed, smaller vehicles could also be made available at short notice.  The whole system worked painlessly.  A transport system was also in place between the guest house (for visitors and newly arrived faculty) and the campus.  Did the institute have an instinctive understanding of the needs of its members from the very beginning? Probably not, but what they do have is a proper system in which members can unhesitatingly bring up their suggestions and grievances to the director and deans with the confidence that their input/feedback will be treated and acted upon in a professional manner.  It is possible that these facilities were not provided to begin with, but were made available when faculty members brought them up at the correct forums.  An institute where the admin works for the well being of all and where the culture is not based upon a senior/junior dichotomy but that of mutual respect and professional courtesy among all goes a long way in keeping its faculty happy, motivated and most importantly, focused on their scientific goals.




[1] Talking about smooth travel policies, a few days ago, I had to take a really early morning flight to go to Bhubaneswar for a Maths event.  I was a bit worried about how safe it would be for a woman to book a cab at 3 am and travel alone to the airport.  I was most pleasantly surprised to know that the institute makes airport/station pick up and drop off arrangements  for employees for professional travel and that there was no need to worry.  

Down memory lane - the move to IISER Pune

Last week, as I was waiting to meet the institute doctor regarding a medical exam, I met a colleague at the reception.  He asked me how I felt after moving from one IISER to another.

Warning: this is going to be a long post!  Read at your own risk.

This took me down memory lane and I remembered my first visit to IISER Pune.  I then realized that I was here this time last year.  I had come to attend the Pan Asian Number Theory Conference/Workshop on Bloch-Kato conjectures in July, 2012.  Apart from attending lectures by experts in this field, I thought it would be a good opportunity to meet and interact with number theorists at IISER Pune.  Moreover, I was really curious to know how another IISER was doing.
Until then, I had not been to any IISER other than IISERK.

I was under the impression that the conference would be in the Sai Trinity building, the temporary campus in the city and that the permanent campus would be somewhere far away.  However, the conference was being held at the permanent campus, situated at a central location on the Homi Bhabha Road in Pashan, Pune, surrounded by other research institutes like NCL, IITM and DRDO.  It was very close to the temporary campus.

On the first morning, as we entered the permanent campus, we noticed huge announcements at the entry gate about the conference.  As the car stopped in front of the conference venue (a building by the name of HR4 as I was to learn later), my heart skipped a beat.  The campus looked really impressive.  I had not expected that the construction of such a huge building (housing conference facilities and the future guest house) would be complete at a (twin) sister institute.

Prof. Raghuram, the Mathematics co-ordinator, who had recently moved to IISER from Oklahoma, welcomed us and took us to the conference room.  On entering and registering, we all got an umbrella designed with the logo of the institute and a special value of the Riemann zeta function.  We met Prof. Shashidhara, the Dean of Faculty and Research, who inaugurated the programme and gave a small welcome speech, followed by another one by Raghuram.  Both of them talked enthusiastically about how their Mathematics group was growing, the number of faculty along with the research areas represented  and the newly launched Maths PhD programme.  Shashi said two things which I still remember.  Firstly, he mentioned the very high faculty-student ratio in the Maths PhD programme.  To me, this meant that the administration there was aware that very few faculty members were working hard to build up a strong PhD programme and was appreciative of their efforts.  Secondly, he mentioned that just as experimental scientists need good experimental facilities to grow, Mathematicians need more interaction with others through conferences, workshops etc. To me, this meant that this was something which the administration here supported generously [1].  In short, he said exactly those things that I was desperately waiting for IISERK administration to recognize regarding my former department.

After the first half of the conference was over, I took a small walk around their campus during lunch time.  I came to know that the new hostel was ready, the lecture hall complex was well underway (it is now functional) and the construction of faculty housing had already started.  As I walked around, I also saw the pre-fab lab complexes.  I also noticed a fleet of IISER buses and small vehicles, which plied between the two campuses.  I took one of these buses to the temporary campus at Sai Trinity building and met a friend there, who gave me a very good idea about the life of a faculty member at IISER Pune.  I received lots of inputs about the availability of decent rented apartments around the area, the safety of women in Pune and related matters.

Just before this visit to IISER Pune, I had started to think about moving to another institute.  But, I had not thought about it seriously - in fact, I was procrastinating on it because the task of planning, doing a round of several job applications/interviews as in 2010 and executing a move seemed daunting.  What's more, I was a little overwhelmed with all kinds of news/rumours about how moving in India is really difficult, how job candidates at certain new institutes were insulted by randomly formed selection committees (I read many of these stories on the comments to the pinned post on Prof. Giri's blog), delay in processing of applications etc etc.  So, even a simple thought experiment of moving would increase my (already very high) levels of cortisol!!  One could say that I was misinformed to some extent and hesitant to come out of my "comfort zone" even though it would be better for my mathematical growth.

That evening, as we waited for a car to take us back to the hotel, I was talking to a senior colleague, Dr. Nice Prof from a different institute.  We were discussing the pleasant weather at Pune.  He jokingly said, "Aap Yahaan kyun nahi aa jaate [why don't you move here]?" He had simply said out aloud what I had already started thinking, namely that IISER P would indeed be a very good place to apply to.  It had a well-staffed (and growing) Mathematics group, a non-trivial group of number theorists and good infrastructure.  What's more, it was in the IISER family - so, I was familiar with and believed in its objectives and academic structure.  But, I was not sure if they were hiring and would entertain my application - if not, it would be an awkward situation.  I thought more about it and made up my mind to ask Raghuram the next morning.  At the very worst, he would say no.  But, at least this would force me to come out of my "comfort zone" and would be my first concrete step in exploring other opportunities.  As a very wise friend pointed out, where was the need for hesitation or awkwardness?  I already had a permanent position, but was just looking for a better opportunity - this is not a crime!  I should ask and I should ask confidently.

So, I approached him the next morning and received a prompt answer, "Yes, we are hiring."  He told me about the hiring procedure, patiently answered all my questions and directed me to the FAQ page for faculty aspirants.  He also told me more about the number theory group at Pune.  So, the matter was decided: I would apply.  It did not mean that I would get the position, but I was willing to try.  I was planning to return in September for another conference and would prepare my application package by then.  But, in the next week, I felt the need to apply as soon as possible.  I contacted potential referees who agreed to write reference letters as soon as needed and sent me plenty of encouragement.  Thus, for some time, I put aside a question that always gnaws at my mind before I apply for any thing, "am I good enough for this?"  I thought, "maybe I am not, but I must apply to find out."

On a dreary Friday morning, determined to put together my application package, I woke up with a headache.  It was raining very heavily and my domestic help did not show up.  I had to request my neighbour for a ride in her car.  She too had just returned from a visit to IISERP and while we drove to campus, she was praising it.

As luck would have it, our new Int. PhD students were joining on that day and I had to meet them to assign them course work, mentors for reading courses etc.  I also had to attend a long meeting.  After that, I remember having a meal at our local tea shop and one of my colleagues remarked, "Kaneenika, you look like you have hit a wall." You bet!  After that, I jumped into preparing the application, with copious help from The FAQ page for faculty aspirants at IISER Pune.  I again wrote to Raghuram, who promptly answered all queries and reminded me to take care to"apply through proper channels."  I called up a former colleague who is now at IISER TVM and he told me exactly what to do.  I then had "the talk" with the Dean, Faculty at IISERK as we headed for another meeting.  Although surprised, he fully cooperated and mentioned that he will speak to the director as soon as possible.
By 9 pm, the application was ready and sent by email to IISERP.  In the application, I mentioned that this was an electronic copy and a hard copy would be forwarded soon through the proper channels.

On Monday morning, I handed over the printed application to Dean, Faculty.  He got the director's approval and handed me a "No Objection Certificate" by noon!  To date, I feel grateful that the higher authorities understood my need to apply and fully cooperated, even at such short notice.  Meanwhile, I also got an acknowledgement of my application from Pune.  I scanned and emailed the NOC to them.  Just as I was waiting to meet D o F to take the NOC, I made the mistake of telling a trusted colleague about this application and requested him to keep it "strictly confidential." As if!! By Tuesday noon, everyone on campus, including the tea shop owner, knew.  I have written here about the comical consequences of my indiscretion.  But, the colleague still remains one of my favourite colleagues at IISERK.

Soon, I also received an email from IISERP, inviting me to give a seminar talk and attend an interview with the selection committee, which was meeting the next Monday on the 13th of August.  I got ready for it.  Since everyone on campus knew about my application, I took advantage of it by practicing the job talk in the preceding weekend with some Maths and Physics colleagues who live on campus.
Their inputs were very helpful.  I then made other preparations for the visit [2].

I arrived at the IISER Pune guest house at Mira Mohan Apartments on Sunday late afternoon and was generously fed with bananas, Maggi noodles and a hot cup of Masala Chai by the resident care-taker, Ramji.

The seminar talk was scheduled next morning, followed by the interview in the afternoon.  As I sat waiting for the committee to call me in, I started to get nervous again.  Will it be like the interviews mentioned in the comments on Prof. Giri's blog?
Will they ask me why I want to move from IISER Kolkata? Will they talk to me in a friendly or insulting tone?

All my fears were allayed within seconds of entering the board room.  Prof. Ganesh, the director, introduced me to all the committee members and immediately put me at ease.  It was a very professional, but at the same time, friendly meeting.  I was asked about my teaching and research activities at IISERK.  They did ask me why I was interested in IISER Pune, but no one asked anything inappropriate about IISERK.  In the later half of the interview, one of the committee members asked me what kind of admin work I had done at IISER K and what kind of committees I had served in.  When I started naming the committees, one member interjected and said, "wait, name the committees that you were not in," after which everyone started laughing.  I was also encouraged to ask questions - my only question was if my PhD student could move with me.  I was told that it was possible.  I came out of the board room very happy and relieved.

IISER Pune informs candidates within a week of the interview whether their application has been successful.  The formal letter comes after BOG's approval.  I also got such an email within two days of returning to Kolkata and then waited for the formal letter.

The formal letter arrived in the end of August.  I saw it in the early morning and immediately wrote back accepting the offer.  It was a bright and sunny morning.  To celebrate the good news, I went for a run around the IISER campus and was treated to Aloo Puri by my domestic help after that.

In early September, I visited IISER Pune again for another conference.  I thanked both Raghuram and Shashi for timely processing of my application, but both of them smiled and acted as if it is routine matter :)  Dr. Nice Prof, who was also visiting for this conference, was very surprised to hear about my upcoming move, joked about it and did not believe me when I reminded him that it was his suggestion.  Just like in July, we were taken for a walk around the campus.  But, this time, I felt as if I was a host and not a visitor.

In retrospect, I still feel amazed at how quickly and smoothly everything worked out.
The application, interview and formal offer happened within a span of one month.
First and foremost, my referees wrote up the letters at short notice.  Secondly, the people concerned at IISER Kolkata cooperated with the move.
Finally, the application got a very good treatment at IISER Pune and when I joined, I was provided with timely help by the administration, which helped in settling down quickly [3].

This also brought back memories of my application to IISER Kolkata way back in 2010, which was also promptly processed.  Even when I had joined there, I was provided a lot of help in settling down.  I believe that this kind of efficient and polite treatment of applications of faculty aspirants and the organizational help received by them on joining goes a long way in motivating new faculty members to give their very best to their organization.




[1] Mathematics at IISER Pune has been very active in organizing international conferences in focused areas.  Next year, we will be organizing two very big Mathematics events, one of which is very closely related to my research area.  I will be writing more about them soon.   

[2] I have written before about my casual approach to dressing up.  But, for the IISER Pune interview, I thought very carefully about what to wear.  In fact, I could not decide what to wear - so, I took three different formal dresses with me to Pune, so that I could choose the best one on the day of the job visit.  As you can see, I REALLY wanted this job :-) 

[3] On the personal front, I had the keys to an apartment and a new car within a day of arrival, prompting one of my colleagues here to name me "superfast Kaneenika."

On strong PhD programmes

A few days ago, in response to this post, a commenter wondered if Indian institutes, including the new ones, are turning into factories to train students to go abroad.  I don't have the general statistics about students staying back in India vis-a-vis students going abroad.  But, from what I observe at N1, a good chunk of our faculty members have studied at institutes like IISc or other older institutes.  So, these institutes have not just trained people who leave the country, but have also trained a sufficient number of people who are doing excellent work at new institutes and are building them up.

But, to come back to the commenter's specific concern, can the new institutes do more to create a research environment that can motivate more students to stay back?  Well, for starters, we can have well designed and competitive PhD programmes which will inspire, attract and motivate interested students.

Scientists and educators  with more experience and accomplishments can of course offer much more carefully thought out views about this matter.  But, two recent incidents have motivated me to write and share some thoughts about it (for whatever they are worth).  I apologize in advance for my scattered thoughts and some "wild speculation" that follows.

Firstly, I have been spending a lot of time with a student in our Post BSc Integrated PhD (PBIP) programme.  In this programme, students finish course work (equivalent to MSc) in the first two years.  In addition, in their second year, they choose an area of interest in which they do a year-long project.  At the end of the second year, they take a comprehensive exam, and if successful, start working towards their PhD in the third year.  The primary advantage of this format is that in the first two years, we can give a rigorous training to students as per the standards and requirements of our PhD programme.  This gives them a stronger foundation to start their PhD at the beginning of the third year with a supervisor.  But, at the end of the second year, students also have the option of leaving with an MSc.

This student is doing her Master's project with me.  As I am leaving next term, we are trying to finish most of her project work while I am still here and she has easier access to me.  This student is very eager, motivated and hard working.  She is, in essence, the first student of our PBIP programme [1].  Her performance, so far, has been brilliant.  So, members of my department have been mulling a lot about how our PBIP programme can be strengthened so that students like her can get the most out of it and retain their motivation.  Moreover, how can we ensure that students like her stay back with us for a PhD and not move at the end of the second year?

Rephrase: How can we attract talented students like her to stay back with us?  [2]

Secondly, there has been some discussion at N1 recently about the underlying objective of the institute.  While some members of our institute primarily think of it as an undergraduate teaching institution and wish to mould it accordingly (with a vision of faculty members doing research in addition to their primary undergraduate teaching responsibilities), some other members see our institute as a research institution, which, equally importantly, teaches and trains students at all levels (undergraduate as well as post graduate) to do science [3].

Members of the latter group feel that to accomplish this vision, our PBIP programme, as well as our PhD programme, should be given  as much importance as the Integrated BS-MS programme.  In fact, it is felt that the PBIP programme should be considered as much a flagship programme of the N-type institutes as the BS-MS programme.

The programme, as it currently stands, may come across as a mere sidekick to the nationally recognized BS-MS programme.  For example, I am not sure about other N institutes, but at N1, we do not have separate courses for the PBIP programme.
Instead, we ask PBIP students to take courses in the higher levels of the BS-MS programme.  This is mainly because of (hopefully short-term) logistical issues, like non-availability of enough faculty to teach so many courses.  Thus, instead of designing courses specifically for the requirements of these students, we only adjust them into our existing courses, which were designed for a different programme.  This may not necessarily inspire the confidence of the students who pursue PBIP or train them in the best possible way [4].

Recognizing PBIP as a flagship programme will lead to proper planning of the course structure in keeping with its aims and very importantly, hiring of enough faculty  to keep the programme running independently.

Another very interesting idea that is being discussed among some faculty members is the possibility of a common national-level entrance procedure into PBIP for all the N-institutes akin to that of the BS-MS programme.  This might enable these institutes to publicize this programme more widely and tap into a bigger pool of talented and interested students.

Given the energy levels and the flowering research programmes of many faculty members at the N institutes, the PBIP programmes at these institutes certainly have a very bright future.

I hope to blog more about this issue as I understand it better.  Inputs/comments from readers will be highly appreciated.

I know that some of the readers of this blog are PBIP students at N-type institutes.
It would be great to hear back from them about their experience with this programme.



[1] Another student had been chosen in the batch before her.  But, he left the programme because he found the course work daunting.
[2] Somehow, "ensure" seems to have a very sinister and coercive implication.  A couple of years ago, a proposal was floated that we levy some kind of fee on students who want to leave with an MSc, but this was immediately shot down by the academic committees overlooking this issue.
[3] Whether these ways of thinking are fundamentally different or fundamentally the same could possibly form the subject of a future blog post!
[4] In my STEM field, this leads to some additional complications.  While, technically speaking, first year PBIP students are equivalent to fourth year MS students, most undergrad programmes in India do not cover the material that we cover in the third year of our BS-MS programme.

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. 

Feeling the pulse - I

Last weekend, I started reading TT Ram Mohan's book "Brick by red brick" on the making of IIM Ahmedabad.  I am enjoying this book very much.  I am not exactly good at book reviewing, nor am I an expert in the technicalities of institute building and institute policies, but what I like most about the book is that the author manages to convey his excitement in exploring how IIMA took shape.  In the four chapters that I have read so far, he spends a considerable time explaining what went on in the first five-ten years (with the first full time director at the centre stage) and strongly emphasizes that the institutional culture in these initial days played a very important role in what IIMA is today.

While I continue to read the book, I can't help but relate the history of the initial days of IIMA to what is happening at N1 right now [1].  Thus, since the last few days, I have been trying to "feel the pulse" of N1, with respect to the academic/professional culture as well as non-academic life.  Perhaps, it is too premature to do so, given that N1 is "under construction"and so is my own academic career!  But, I spend almost all my time here and want to understand the place better.  So, I suppose there is no harm in contemplating upon these matters over a couple of posts.

I am unable to pin down a word or phrase that would adequately describe the prevailing culture at N1.  But, I did realize that there are a few aspects in the functioning of this institute which we now take for granted and which have made a very positive impact on my life here [2].  One of these is the approachability of our top administration, including the director, registrar and the deans.  We are allowed to walk into their offices any time we need to [3] and we unhesitatingly email them if they are out of station.  I am of course not implying that everything we ask for gets approved.  But, at least, we have the freedom to ask and ask directly.  Also, if they agree with us or if we are able to convince them, the implementation of the approval is fairly quick.  I also like the fact that it is usually enough to forward the concerned authority's email with approval to the concerned office assistant instead of running from office to office, getting paper applications signed from all parties concerned.

My only concerns are the following:

1) Since approaching the authorities directly saves a lot of time, I tend to do this very frequently and then, forward the approval to the concerned office assistant.  Am I alienating the office staff by doing this?  

2) As the institute grows rapidly, the authorities cannot possibly continue to be so flexible and approachable.  After enjoying the current favourable circumstances, how will we adjust to longer procedures and the more elaborate hierarchy (which is inevitable as the institute becomes older)?  

The reader's feedback about these concerns is most welcome.

I would also like to hear back from you about what part of the daily culture of your institute/university you enjoy the most.  

I will try to write more about N1 culture in the next few posts.  I suspect that what is going on here might be very similar to the situation in a lot of other institutes, especially the new ones.

[1] For this reason and also for the positivity exuded by the author, I highly recommend it to all young faculty members in India.

[2] and which also make it much easier to deal with things which are not-so-good.

[3] with just exceptions of course.  In order to not interrupt important meetings in the director's office, we first call up his secretary to check if he is free.

Naysayers

A few days ago, a colleague C invited a senior collaborator to visit N1 for a few days to discuss their research project.  C had hoped that since the collaborator is a well known and senior researcher in their field, his presence would have a positive effect on their department and that the senior visitor would give them some input about department activities like their graduate program, which is being built from scratch.

The senior researcher, let's call him SR, agreed to visit N1 for two days.  However, his visit totally belied C's expectations.  All that SR had to offer was criticism and disdain.  Some of his comments, at their best, could be interpreted as impatience with the newness of N1 and at their worst, as showing no faith in the future of N1.
After SR left, C was depressed for some time and doubted his decision to join N1.
But, he got over it soon and decided not to take SR's comments too seriously.

Perhaps, SR meant to offer constructive criticism, but it just came out the wrong way.  Perhaps, this was SR's way of showing concern for C, for whom he wanted the very best.  Or perhaps, SR is a jerk with an inflated opinion of himself, who could not appreciate the hospitality of a department which had invited him with a lot of goodwill.  I do not know him well enough to decide.

SR is not unique in writing off N1 and I have met others with similar views about N1-type institutes.  If I am in a good mood, I think, "Oh well.  These people have got used to working in a certain environment and cannot imagine that people can adjust to and stay happy in environments different from theirs." If I am in a bad mood,  I deplore their prejudice and lack of vision.[1]

Nonetheless, what concerns me is that by making disparaging comments, scientists like SR are possibly discouraging their PhD students and postdocs from applying to new institutes.  This is not good for my department (and similar departments in other new institutes), who are trying very hard to hire and retain good people.  This is also not good for those students and postdocs, who might only apply to limited institutes and restrict their options.

Perhaps, this is not as serious as I have made it out to be.  I welcome feedback from readers.

For those of you who are planning to enter the job market or who already have a job(anywhere in the world), how important is/has been your supervisor/mentor's opinion about your potential employer to you?[2]

For my senior readers, did you or would you discourage your PhD student or postdoc from applying to a new institute?

If my PhD student ever approaches me for advice about choosing a job, I would say something along the lines of a comment made by Vijay, while answering a question raised in a previous post:

"Today, I would focus on joining a research institution or university, young or old, that is fun to be in and wants me. The two criteria, fun to be and one which wants you, appear simple but are not. If you manage such a place, you have it made and the equipment will take care of itself."




[1] I do so mentally, of course - I cannot imagine the consequences if I were to say that aloud.  
[2] I consulted my PhD advisor before taking my final decision.  I think I would have made this choice even if he did not have a great opinion of N1.  However, his positive views were certainly very encouraging and meant a lot to me.