Fake CV #1

Here is the first example submitted for the Fake CV Attempt-At-Academic-Humor thing. I typically try to come up with names for the title (something more interesting than "Fake CV #1), but I thought maybe you -- the readers -- would have some illustrative suggestions for this. For each CV, consider leaving a comment that captures the essence of that CV.

Note that I do not necessarily agree with the philosophy and attempt-at-humor in each CV that I will post, but I do appreciate the efforts of those who have submitted fake CVs. Some of the CVs are a bit surprising considering that the senders note that many/most elements of the CVs have been observed in real CVs. Food for thought. 

Has anyone seen anything like this submitted for an academic position before?


SEWARD "Bo" GRITT III

Dept of Science
University of Here
43 Campus Road
Campustown STATE USA
e-mail: sewbogritt3@uofhere.edu

Education

PhD 2010 Science
University of There
Dissertation title: "Further analysis of some things my advisor analyzed 10 years ago"
Advisor: Associate Professor JJ Tasker

BS 2005 Science
Summa cum laude
The College

Academic Employment 

Postdoctoral Research Associate, 2010-present
University of Here

Fall quarter, 2007, Teaching Assistant "Introduction to Scientific Concepts"

Recent Academic Honors and Awards

Zippy D. DooDah Award for "Best Dissertation Title", 2010, University of There

Science Geek of the Year Award, Dept of Science, The College, 2003-04 (declined)

Dean's List (4x)

Publications

Gritt, S., et al., Analytical results from materials analyzed, to be submitted to a high-impact journal (in prep.)

Gritt, S., et al., Chapter 4 of my dissertation, to be submitted to a high-impact journal (in prep.)

Gritt, S., et al., Further analysis of analyzed materials. Nature (submitted)

Tasker, J.J., Gritt, S., et al., Additional analysis of materials previously analyzed. Science (submitted)

Gritt, S., Material analysis of materials analyzed. Journal of Specialized Material Analysis of Materials, v. 1 (3), p. 57-59.

Invited talks (pending)







Happy Birthday Merry Christmas

No, this is not another reflection on the perils and pleasures of having a birthday at this time of year; at least, not exactly. The topic did, however, come up recently in an unusual setting and somehow this led to another topic that is a rather common theme around here at the FSP blog, and I was kind of fascinated by that.

Below you will find a transcript (heavily edited for brevity, but faithfully recording the content) of a conversation I recently had as part of being "interviewed" by an official person at an airport re. the Security of the Homeland. I hope it doesn't shock anyone, but you will see below that I admit to lying (once) to this official person in this interview.

Man In Uniform (MIU): Your birthday is very close to the end of the year. That must have made your father happy, for tax purposes.

FSP: Yes. (That was my one lie: In fact, it was my mother who was happy about this; she handled all the family finances, did the taxes, and had labor induced a few days early, for tax purposes. I doubt if my father knew or cared about any of this, but I didn't see a reason to correct the MIU's assumption about my parents.)

MIU: Have we met before?

FSP: Not to my knowledge.

MIU: I think we might have met. A few weeks ago I met another female professor from your university. She works on [name of a research topic that a non-scientist might think is similar to what I do even though it's not].

FSP: No, that wasn't me. I work on X, and that's different from what that other professor works on.

MIU: Are you sure? Two lady professors from the same university, both scientists?

FSP (calmly): That wasn't me. There are more than two female science professors at my university.

MIU: I used to jump out of airplanes.

FSP: OK.

MIU: Have you ever changed your name?

FSP: No.

MIU: [long anecdote about a woman in his family who recently changed her name]. Have you ever plotted to overthrow the US government?

FSP: No.

The rest was kind of boring. Why had I traveled to Countries X, Y, and Z? What did I bring back? Who paid for my business travel? etc.

That's my Christmastime-birthday-gender-directed-weirdness anecdote. Happy Birthday Merry Christmas, and don't forget to send in your fake CV for the Academic Writing Contest of 2012.


The Annual End-of-Year Academic Writing Contest: 2012

For me, this winter break would not be festive without an End-of-Year Attempt-At-Humor Academic Writing Contest Of Some Sort. Oh sure, I can get in the holiday mood by walking into any store, cafe, or gas station and being subjected to a bewildering variety of renditions of the most appalling Christmas songs possible, I can (try to) put reindeer antlers on my most docile cat, and I can even decorate cookies in vile colors (Fig. 1),

but it just wouldn't be the same without an End-of-Year Attempt-At-Humor Academic Writing Contest of Some Sort.

To recap the last 4 contests:

What now? Announcing: the CV (curriculum vitae/resume).

I know what you are (possibly) thinking: the CV? That is not writing.

And so I reply, if you are (possibly) thinking that: au contraire. I have learned in the past few months that even the smallest, shortest, fragmentary attempt to convey information in a visual way is "writing". I learned this in some "meetings".

But that's not why I have selected the CV as this year's writing theme. I selected the CV because I have been continually amazed over the years by the fact that it is possible to go so far astray with what is seemingly a simple document in which some biographical and other facts are arranged to describe a person's qualifications for a position. Even more amazing to me is the realization that it is possible for someone to create (what seems to me to be) an obnoxious CV; not in the nature of the facts but in how they are presented.

Readers who wish to participate: Your challenge is to create an entirely fictitious or at least heavily disguised CV that fulfills one or more of the following outcomes,
  • entertainment;
  • horror;
  • mentoring;
  • all of the above.
whilst not veering (too far) from the norms of the academic CV. In addition, it would be great if the fabricated CV is not too long.

I hasten to emphasize that submitted CVs should not humiliate any actual persons other than yourself. The purpose of this contest is to have fun, relieve end-of-term stress, and perhaps make a dramatic and useful point or three about potential CV pitfalls.

As always, parody -- subtle or savage -- is encouraged, although I realize (from e-mails I have received over the years) that these writing contests may generate some anxiety in those who are in the process of creating the very document that is being featured. I have therefore added "mentoring" as a possible outcome, even if the mentoring is done in an ungentle way.

Entries can be sent to femalescienceprofessor@gmail.com (do not send attachments) and will be reviewed by the FSP Editorial Board. I will be traveling in an unusual place throughout most of late December - early January, but I will post selected entries as internet access permits.

Entries will be accepted until the position is filled. Review of entries will begin on or soon after I start receiving them in the next week or two. Eventually there may be a vote on the Most Entertaining, Most Horrifying, and/or Most Useful Fake CV.


Mentor Bully

Not long ago, I attended a workshop that included a presentation on mentoring. The presentation was given by someone who had a lot of experience with mentoring students, postdocs, and other faculty, in training faculty to be mentors, and in training faculty to train other faculty to be mentors (etc.). You get the picture: this person was immersed in the theory and practice of mentoring and had been asked to share their experience with 'best practices' and advice about mentoring.

In particular, I was curious to learn whether and how peer institutions organize mentoring systems for assistant professors, and to share ideas with colleagues about postdoc mentoring plans (such as we submit with NSF proposals that include requests for postdoc salary). In fact, I got a lot out of talking to the other workshop participants about mentoring issues, even though we were not the "experts" on mentoring. It turns out many of has similar questions and concerns.

What did we get from the "mentoring expert"? We got abrupt and patronizing comments, including responses like "no kidding", "that's obvious", and "that's wrong" (with no explanation for why it was wrong, just that it was not what the Mentor Expert does).

I wondered: perhaps this is yet another cautionary tale about what can happen when you become too expert in a topic, even a supposedly warm-and-fuzzy topic like mentoring. And this is what can happen when you try to convey your knowledge and experience in a text-laden Powerpoint presentation, and are not happy when questions and comments from the audience attempt to make you veer from your prepared (bullet) points.

Memo to me: try not to be like that if at all possible

Did I learn anything new about mentoring at this workshop? Not exactly, but it was still good to see what the range of possibilities are, for example, for mentoring systems for assistant professors:
  • Should mentors be assigned or should they volunteer? There were surprisingly strong feelings about this.
  • How many should each person have (1? 2? the entire department? different mentors for research and teaching?) 
  • Should mentor and mentee meet a certain minimum number of times per term or per year or just leave it open and hope that conversations happen naturally? 
  • What are the most essential roles of mentors? To answer questions or to be proactive about asking questions and giving advice? To read grant proposals and manuscripts before they are submitted?
  • Should anything 'extra' be done for members of underrepresented groups, or would that be 'singling them out' in an unfair and possibly humiliating way?
If I had to guess in an unscientific way, I would say that most of the participants I talked to and whose departments have some sort of mentoring system would answer:

assigned, 1, once/term, all of the above, no on doing 'extra' mentoring for underrepresented groups

... and the mentoring expert would answer:

volunteer, entire department, conversations should happen naturally, whatever everyone has time for, yes on doing 'extra' mentoring for underrepresented groups


Unsuitable

Not long ago, I sat in a room for many hours as various Teams of People tried to convince a committee that they were the best people for the (unspecified here) job. It was kind of interesting. These people were not academics, and it was fascinating to see how they made their presentations -- how they spoke, what they put in their presentation slides, and how the various members of the teams interacted with each other and with the committee.

During one of the transitions between teams, I was chatting with someone and didn't really notice the new team until they had all assembled, and then when I looked up, I was a bit stunned. The other teams were diverse in terms of gender, and, although I hadn't paid close attention, seemed to consist of approximately equal numbers of men and women. This new team, however, was a Team of Men (in Suits). Their presentation was, in fact, overall quite excellent, although it was notable (to me) that when they referred to a hypothetical professor, that professor was always a 'he'. The other teams used 'they' or alternated between 'he' and 'she'.

In the end, the Team of Men (ToM) and one other team were deemed to be the top two contenders for the job. Although I don't have a lot of say in the matter, one of these teams is going to have to work very closely with me in the future. I feel that I can work with either one, but I wonder why this one team is so un-diverse.

There seem be many women in the fields relevant to these teams, as indicated by the other teams (and, incidentally, the fact that my father is in one of these fields and has quite a few female colleagues), so what explains the ToM? I don't know, but even if the explanation is that these men just happen to prefer to work together without any women on their team -- isn't that bad for business in some circumstances?

If I were the Decider (I am not), and had to decide which team I would rather work with --  all other things being equal in terms of team qualifications -- I would choose the other team; that is, not the ToM. The other team seemed to be more open to cooperation and discussion with the faculty, and that is a rather critical factor to me in this situation.

Spot On

By request, I contributed a post to the Science Online/Spot On event that took place in London recently. The formatting turned out a bit strange, but there it is.

Feminist in all but name

It never fails to take me aback when people say "I'm not a feminist but.." and then follow the "but" with an opinion that indicates that the person is quite likely to agree with the basic principles of feminism, in the sense of believing in political, economic, and social rights for women.
 
OK, so there are worse things than this; it is not difficult to think of many worse things than people who are feminists-in-all-but-name.

Even so, I was surprised the other day at an Administrative Meeting, when a female administrator whom I had not previously met came up to me and said:

 "The Vice-Person for Stuff told me that you are the first woman [position that I now hold in my university]. I'm not a feminist, but I think that's great. It's about time. We need more women [in that job] in the university."

She went on to say that the lack of women leaders in her unit of the university was a serious, longstanding problem. Most of the students and researchers are women, but few of the leaders are women. Every once in a while, a woman is allowed to be an interim head of something, but only until a man can be found to take over the job. She was frustrated by this, and more than a little cynical that it would change any time soon. She herself was an interim director and was certain that she would not be given the permanent position. She was sure they would replace her with a man, although she is highly qualified to keep doing this job.

Well, good thing she isn't a feminist because..

.. because why? I am having trouble finishing that sentence with anything that makes sense.

I don't even know why she chose to preface her sentence with "I'm not a feminist, but..". Why add that? If she had just said "I heard you're the first woman etc. and I think that's great", without the qualifier, what did she fear I would think? That she was a raving man-hating angry woman? That she is not automatically in favor of a woman being appointed to a position with some authority?

I did not ask her. I would very much like to help stamp out these twisted negative views of feminism/feminists, but after that strange little comment, our brief conversation focused on practical things that needed discussing in the short amount of time available.




Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)