Job-In-Industry-After-Your-PhD-pyramid-academiaTo say getting a job in academia is difficult is an understatement — a recent study showed something like one in 8 PhDs will manage to find a faculty position. Fortunately, the overall unemployment rate among STEM PhDs is low, less than 2%, so there’s lots of good alternatives.

For myself, I was fortunate to have lots of support from family, friends, and colleagues, but the academic job search was excruciating. Usually the process of getting a faculty position involves a series of interviews, and among them, the phone interview was particularly stressful for me because it often lacked the non-verbal channel that constitutes a huge fraction of human communicative bandwidth — there’s nothing worse than interrupting one of your interviewers while they’re still trying to get a question out.

In prepping for my phone interviews, I came up with a few strategies that I’ve recently shared with friends who are currently applying for jobs. On the off-chance that they might be helpful generally, I’ve described them below.

Usually, the phone interview involves being asked a series of questions (sometimes scripted) from members of the hiring committee at the department to which you’ve applied. I found that I often struggled to come up with good answers on-the-fly, so, after a few poor performances, I wrote up answers to questions I’d gotten in previous interviews or ones I anticipated. Then I laid them out on tables in a circle around me in my office, so I could easily find an answer to a question, if asked.

I didn’t read the answers verbatim, but the notes were extremely helpful for keeping my answers concise. I found it very easy to ramble on, trying to find the words you think the committee is looking for.

Here’s my list of questions:

  • “How do you think your research program would fit into the department? Who would you work with here?” I had already done extensive research on every faculty member before an interview, even those not in my field of astronomy. Not that you’ll work with them, but unless you’re interviewing with a department that specializes in exactly your field, you’ll probably have some folks from different fields involved with your interviews.
  • “What classes could you teach?” For this question, I sifted through the course catalog so I could point to specific classes they already offered before suggesting new ones, but good chance they’ll ask about both kinds.
  • “Why do you want to work here?” I tried to mention specific things about the school and department, not just answer “because you’re hiring”.
  • “How will you involve students, grads and undergrads, in your research?” I had one or two specific projects in mind, as well as thoughts about how I would support the students’ career development.
  • “What resources will you need to continue your research?” Especially important when I interviewed with smaller places that didn’t have all the resources of a larger place.
  • “What are your public outreach plans?” In my case as an astronomer, I looked up and contacted local amateur astronomical societies to ask about what they were up to and how I might help if I came to town.
  • “How will you fund your research? What specific funding programs could you apply for?” In my case, I’d already applied for several grants and served on grant review panels, so I had some specific ideas.
  • “How would you fit into this town?” Especially important if you’re
    interviewing for a job in a smaller town since they might be concerned you’ll get bored and look for a new job soon after arriving.
  • “Where do you see yourself in five years? What goals do you have for your research/funding/teaching?” Pretty standard, but good to have specific ideas about how your research/teaching might develop. Most people know you can’t know exactly, but they’ll be interested in your broad vision.
  • “How will you balance teaching and research?” I got asked this one a lot, and it’s especially important to have an answer if you haven’t done much teaching before.

You should also have questions for the hiring committee:

  • “How many students are there in the department? What happens to them after they graduate?”
  • “What is there to do around town?/What’s the town like?”
  • “How does the department fit in at the university? How supportive is the university of the department?”
  • “Does the university and department have relationships or collaborations with other nearby schools?”
  • “Where in town do faculty live?”
  • “What is the timeline for hiring decisions?”
  • “Where is the department going in the next few years?” Always fun to turn this question back around on the hirers.

If you’ve got any comments or corrections, please pass them along. Happy Holidays.

UPDATED – 2018 Dec 5:

The illustrious Laura Kreidberg (https://twitter.com/lkreidberg/status/1070389734432743424) suggested adding the question “How would you support students from diverse backgrounds and encourage inclusion in the dept?”. I could imagine that being asked by the interviewers or it might be a good question for an interviewee to ask to gauge a department’s commitment to equity issues.

Solar coronal mass ejection. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare.

Solar coronal mass ejection. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare.

In my PHYS204 – Planetary Astronomy lab today, the students gave final presentations on their semester projects.

This semester is the first time we in the Physics Dept have offered the Planetary Astronomy class, and as an experiment, I asked the students to break into several groups and gave each group a research project. These projects are legitimate research projects, not simplified exercises, so they were quite challenging for the students, who have little to no research experience.

But the students did an excellent job, overcoming a variety of hurdles, from taming stellar evolution models  to wrapping hundreds of feet of wire to build a radio antenna to detect solar flares.

I asked the students to  keep a wiki, describing their projects and progress. Their presentations are also available.

Many of them will continue on into the PHYS205 – Stellar Astronomy class and keep pushing their projects forward.

IMG_3401

Last week, I had a lovely visit to the Astronomy Dept at New Mexico State University in beautiful Las Cruces. I was invited to give one of the dept’s weekly colloquia about our research group’s work on very short-period exoplanets. While there, I talked dust devil science with my host Prof. Jim Murphy, his student Kathryn Steakley, and Lynn Neakrase.

I also enjoyed some excellent Mexican food at the Double Eagle Restaurant, which has been haunted by the ghosts of two young lovers since just after the Mexican-American War.

The International Space Station passing over Mesilla, NM on 2015 Dec 4.

The International Space Station passing over Mesilla, NM on 2015 Dec 4.

Just before dinner, the ISS also passed directly over our heads, and I got a very poor photo of it (left).

So, all in all, a great visit.

 

 

I’ve posted my abstract and presentation below.

—

On the Edge: Exoplanets with Orbital Periods Shorter Than a Peter Jackson Movie


From wispy gas giants to tiny rocky bodies, exoplanets with orbital periods of several days and less challenge theories of planet formation and evolution. Recent searches have found small rocky planets with orbits reaching almost down to their host stars’ surfaces, including an iron-rich Mars-sized body with an orbital period of only four hours. So close to their host stars that some of them are actively disintegrating, these objects’ origins remain unclear, and even formation models that allow significant migration have trouble accounting for their very short periods. Some are members of multi-planet system and may have been driven inward via secular excitation and tidal damping by their sibling planets. Others may be the fossil cores of former gas giants whose atmospheres were stripped by tides.

In this presentation, I’ll discuss the work of our Short-Period Planets Group (SuPerPiG), focused on finding and understanding this surprising new class of exoplanets. We are sifting data from the reincarnated Kepler Mission, K2, to search for additional short-period planets and have found several new candidates. We are also modeling the tidal decay and disruption of close-in gaseous planets to determine how we could identify their remnants, and preliminary results suggest the cores have a distinctive mass-period relationship that may be apparent in the observed population. Whatever their origins, short-period planets are particularly amenable to discovery and detailed follow-up by ongoing and future surveys, including the TESS mission.

We had our last research group meeting of 2015 on Friday since finals are coming up soon. Fairly large crowd, though, for a meeting so late in the year.

Artist's conception of Vanderburg's disintegrating body. From https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~avanderb/page1.html.

Artist’s conception of Vanderburg’s disintegrating body. From https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~avanderb/page1.html.

We discussed Andrew Vanderburg’s discovery of a disintegrating minor body orbiting a white dwarf star.  The body, as small as Ceres or smaller, is so close to its host star that it’s actively evaporating and falling apart, and the shadows of the resulting dust cloud is visible data from the K2 Mission. The dust then falls onto the white dwarf, polluting its atmosphere in a way we can see spectrally.

We also had a very impressive presentation from Hari Gopalakrishnan of Renaissance High School on a recent study from Jim Fuller at Caltech. Fuller and colleauges analyzed oscillations at the surface of a red giant star to infer the presence and strength of magnetic fields deep in the star’s interior. Hari kindly shared the presentation, which I’ve linked below.

Attendees at this journal club included Jennifer Briggs, Karan Davis, Emily Jensen, Tyler Gordon, Steven Kreyche, Jake Soares, and Hari Gopalakrishnan.

From http://kepler.nasa.gov/images/mws/kepler4441.jpg.

From http://kepler.nasa.gov/images/mws/kepler4441.jpg.

We had an abbreviated research group meeting today at which we discussed the recent K2 Science Conference before I head off to the DPS conference in Washington DC. Everyone was in good spirits, considering how late in the semester it is. We’re planning to meet once more before Thanksgiving and will probably go on hiatus until spring semester after that.

Today’s attendees included Hari Gopalakrishnan, Jennifer Briggs, Emily Jensen, Karan Davis, Tyler Gordon, Jake Soares, and Steven Kreyche.

k2scicon_web_bannerOn my way back to Boise from the first K2 Science Conference, a week-long conference on the K2 Mission, successor to the Kepler mission.

Although I had to leave only two days into the conference (gotta get back to teach about the Origins of Earth Life), I got to see some amazing talks.

Talks that really stick out in my mind include Natalie Batalha‘s talk about the frequency of Earth-like planets (one for every three Sun-like stars); Roberto Sanchis-Ojeda‘s talk on a disintegrating planet with a cometary tail; and Jim Fuller‘s talk about measuring magnetic fields deep in the hearts of red giant stars by studying waves on the stars’ surfaces. The burritos at Sandbar on State St. are also pretty amazing.

All in all, a dazzling conference in refreshing Santa Barbara, CA.

Screen Shot 2015-10-30 at 5.00.32 PMI’m gearing up for the K2 Science Conference next week and preparing my presentation. So this week at journal club, I thought it would be fun for everyone to give short presentations on their research projects.

Jennifer Briggs talked about looking at secondary eclipses of the hot Jupiter HAT-P-7 b and how we’re trying to use variations in the eclipses to look for meteorological variability.

I presented some preliminary results from our SuPerPiG search for very short-period exoplanets using data from the K2 mission. The practice talk was very helpful to me because I learned that I had way too many slides.

We spent a little time talking about good presentation style and techniques, and it reminded me that Emily Lakdawalla of the Planetary Society put together a very good blog post about how to give a presentation.

This week’s attendees included Jennifer Briggs, Emily Jensen, Karan Davis, Tyler Gordon, Hari Gopalakrishnan, Ahn Hyung, and Jake and Steven (whose last names I still don’t know).

The Kepler-11 planetary system, with at least 6 planets in short orbits. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-11.

The Kepler-11 planetary system, with at least 6 planets in short period orbits. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-11.

Following on last week’s journal club where we discussed a paper in which collisions removed planetary atmospheres, this week we looked at a new paper by Aaron Boley and colleagues in which collisions promoted accretion of an atmosphere.

Boley and colleagues modeled gravitational interactions in tightly packed planetary systems, like the Kepler-11 system, 6 planets packed into a space smaller than Venus’ orbit.

Not surprisingly, when so many planets are packed into such a tight space, bad things can happen, and Boley and colleagues showed that such planets often collide with one another, sticking together to form even larger planets. In some cases, the newly formed planet can be large enough that it can accrete gas from its maternal protoplanetary disk and form a gas giant planet.

The standard model for planet formation suggests gas giants shouldn’t form close to their host stars, but Boley and colleagues argue that their collisional scenario could explain the presence of so many hot Jupiters and Neptunes found around Sun-like stars in the last few decades. Their work could help resolve the puzzle of hot Jupiters, an exoplanet mystery older than some of my students.

Journal club attendees included Jennifer Briggs, Emily Jensen, Karan Davis, Tyler Gordon, and Jacob Sabin. (Physics majors Jake and Steve also attended, but I don’t know their last names.)

Artist's depiction of a collision between two planetary bodies. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis.

Artist’s depiction of a collision between two planetary bodies. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis.

We read a fun paper in journal club today, written by Inamdar and Schlichting of MIT that looks at the impact of large impactors on the atmospheres of gas-rich exoplanets.

Among the surprising discoveries of exoplanet searches is a huge class of  gas-rich planets between Neptune and Earth in size. Called sub-Neptunes or super-Earths, standard models for planet formation predict these planets shouldn’t exist — either they should have remained as small as the Earth as they accreted or they should have quickly grown to the size of Jupiter or Saturn. We don’t have planets like these in our solar system, but they may be one of the most abundant type of planet in the galaxy.

Even harder to understand, sub-Neptunes display a very broad range of densities, with some having densities greater than Earth’s and others with the density of wind-packed snow. This diversity indicates some planets have large rocky/icy cores with just a little gas on top, while others have tiny cores with bloated hydrogen/helium atmospheres. Since we think gaseous planets all form more-or-less the same way, it’s hard to explain this wide range of internal structures.

Inamdar and Schlichting explore the possibility that giant impacts between young planets in these systems could account for this diversity. By applying a simple 1-D hydrodynamic model, they show that these massively violent collisions could easily remove large amounts of atmosphere from the young planets.

Whether a certain planet experienced such a collision depends in a stochastic way on the initial conditions and gravitational interactions in these chaotic young planetary systems. So some planets would have experienced large collisions that removed a lot of their atmospheres, giving a high mean density, while others didn’t, leaving them low-density.

These same kind of planetary collisions shaped the diversity of planets in our own solar system. For example, the Earth’s Moon formed as the result of a collision between the proto-Earth and Mars-sized object, named Theia. Uranus probably got its unusual tilt from a collision with an Earth-sized object early in its history.

So even though most extrasolar planetary systems we know about don’t resemble our own, the results from this study show the same processes shaped them, and planets everywhere probably experienced a violent adolescence.

Journal club attendees today included Jennifer Briggs, Karan Davis, Hari Gopalakrishnan, Tyler Gordon, Emily Jensen, and Jacob Sabin.

 

The geysers near Enceladus' south pole. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus#/media/File:PIA19061-SaturnMoonEnceladus-CurtainNotDiscrete-Eruptions-20150506.jpg.

The geysers near Enceladus’ south pole. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus#/media/File:PIA19061-SaturnMoonEnceladus-CurtainNotDiscrete-Eruptions-20150506.jpg.

Saturn’s moon Enceladus has inspired fascination since Herschel found it in the late 1700s. The discovery of active cryovolcanoes geysers** on its surface by the Cassini mission in 2006 raised that fascination to a feverous intensity.

Although the source of energy powering the volcanoes geysers** was not (and is still not) understood, their implication was clear: Enceladus could have a sub-surface ocean, like his big sister Europa.

The follow-up discovery of salty particles in the geysers all but clinched the existence of a sub-surface water source. Salt in the eruptions would probably require liquid water to dissolve rocky materials to produce the salt. But it wasn’t clear whether the sub-surface source is a small pocket of water directly beneath the geysers or a more global-scale ocean.

In our journal club today, we discussed a paper that points to the existence of a global ocean. The recently published study from Peter Thomas and colleagues analyzed Enceladus’ rotation to study its internal structure. By tracking the motion of hundreds of control points on Enceladus’ surface, they found that its outer icy crust oscillates back and forth during its rotation much more than it should if the moon were solid all the way through.

Thomas and colleagues show that the large oscillations they found (called libration) require a large layer of fluid within Enceladus to lubricate the space between its outer, icy shell and its rocky interior. Otherwise, the moon would oscillate a lot less. Difficult to say exactly, but Thomas and colleagues estimate the ocean could be as thick as 30 km beneath an 20-km thick icy crust.

Just as Europa’s ocean, a sub-surface ocean in Enceladus could represent an enormous harbor for life. Even on this tiny moon, such a deep ocean is only about a tenth the size of the Earth’s oceans*.

Although Enceladus’ surface would be a tough neighborhood for life, sub-surface biota (if they ever evolved) would be protected by a thick layer of ice from the vacuum of space and interplanetary radiation. In fact, this same radiation could impinge on the surface and produce a steady supply of biologically useful oxidants, which could then trickle down into the subsurface ocean and help power the alien biosphere.

Thomas and colleagues suggest a more detailed analysis of Enceladus’ surface geology, newly inspired by their discovery, might help unravel the history of the ocean. Similar analyses of Europa’s complex tangle of surface ridges and cracks helped piece together that moon’s geological history.

Journal club attendees today included Jennifer Briggs, Hari Gopalakrishnan, Tyler Gordon, and Jacob Sabin.

*Earth’s oceans are, on average, 4 km deep, much smaller than Earth’s radius of 6,400 km. Therefore, I approximated their volume as pi*(6,400 km)^2 (4 km) ~ 500 Mkm^3. A similar calculation for Enceladus’ ocean — pi*(50 km)^2 (30 km) ~ 24 Mkm^3.

**Dr. Thomas kindly pointed out that there is some debate over the nature of the eruptions on Enceladus, and volcanoes is probably not the term to use.