Tag Archives: Advice

Student Stories

Long road to PhD: Three things I have learned along the way

Leave a comment
By Kerry R Belton
  1. Persistence:

Grad school can be difficult and isn’t always a breeze; sometimes you don’t want to deal with something that isn’t working right. It has taught me how to cope with rejection and most importantly how to recover from “failure.” I’m about 100% sure at some point in your graduate career you will feel failure of some sort—especially when experiments don’t work… But hey, if everything worked the first time, you’d get a PhD in one year (side note: that would be awesome). Sometimes, I took critiques from my early years in grad school personally—they hurt, and I became anxious and frustrated. The constant repetition and the feeling that what I was doing was insignificant were tough. But as I pressed through, eventually all my worries, doubts, fears, and all those criticisms faded away. I had to mature and overcome my frustration and realize that in each failure there is a valuable lesson. And as long I continue to be persistent, there is a chance that I can attain the successful science career that I still dream of and be happy with my definition of success. Now I see clearly that “failure” is a normal part of grad school or at least it is for us non-perfect folks. Today, I can say that graduate school has made me a much better scientist, and I value the training/education that I have been fortunate enough to receive up to this point.

Advice: Keep your head up, cling to the will of pushing forward, and most of all, look at the bigger picture. Success has to be hiding around here somewhere; it’s just up to you to find it.

http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1749
  1. Consciousness:

When I began grad school, feelings of anxiety and insecurity had me thinking that I was only getting results —at least that’s what it felt like. I continued to work for results and quickly started to recognize that there is not an end to this undertaking when I worked that way. So, grad school taught me to focus on the fine detail and how to be decisive. It is vital to be careful and painstakingly careful, particularly meticulous and scrupulous. There is a world of difference between an “ng” and a “µg”. Being one “0” off can throw off an entire experiment. Thoroughly planning each element of your work is crucial. After all, the main goal of most scientists is to publish peer-reviewed articles. And why do an experiment ten times when you could only do it three? The time you spend working is valuable—more valuable then gold in my opinion. I’m just saying, in a million years, gold will still be here, but most likely you won’t.

Advice: Realize that there has to be an “end” to the story. Well, there is never really an end to any story. Your project could go on indeterminately and a new graduate student could pick up the slack. My point is that focusing can be your motivation and light at the end of the tunnel. So ask yourself: What experiments do I need to do now and in the fastest amount of time in order to publish and graduate? Plan your experiments thoroughly and cover your bases. With this focused approach, you can quickly shoo away nay-sayers and disgruntled reviewers.

phd080715s-funny 2
http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1816
  1. Communication: 

As grad students, we must have the capability to clearly express our ideas—in person and in writing. I have learned that grad school is nothing equated to undergrad. Specifically, you are entirely on your own—communication is fundamental. Keep in mind that there are different levels of communication (i.e. your lab mates, your adviser, your specific scientific community, and with the community at large). During a co-op I did a few years ago—my supervisor told me “you have to be able to talk to everybody — from company executives on site for a visitation to the gruff guys out in the sun all day covered in motor oil — because you need all of them to make this plant as a whole run properly.” This lesson still applies to my science and our science community here today. Each level of communication requires a slightly different approach in the way of speaking and conveying the information. They’re all important, both for us as individuals and for moving our research forward. Just think, you wouldn’t write a job cover letter the same way you would write an NSF grant. Believe me when I say it would be a bad feeling when you have discovered something new or interesting and can’t clearly communicate the significance of your finding to your peers. Precisely for that reason, grad school “forces” you to cultivate certain character qualities and develops you into a more enlightened and stouter person. It forces you to seek answers and to speak up, to absorb information more quickly, to put your own pride aside, and to apprehend that you are all in it together to advance scientific research with a common goal to better human life.

Advice: Grad school “forces” you to strive for answers and to speak up. So don’t sit quietly confused; be loquacious. Remember, write and communicate for your audience whether it’s a room full of cursing sailors or a nursing home– communication is KEY to your success so use it wisely.

http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1365

Final thoughts

Grad school develops you like a ripening fruit on a branch full of seeds, each eagerly ready to grow into its own tree someday. Basically, it’s about the journey that shapes you into the productive PhD, not the destination. Try to enjoy your journey and be grateful for every lesson along the way, even the bad ones. Never be afraid to ask for help or to give help to those in need. Offer up your expertise and network– you never know where these interactions could lead. Don’t try to do everything alone; it’s okay to depend on your friends and family to help you through tough times and to keep you motivated. Be social and get out of the lab from time-to-time, enjoy the sunlight and a nice road trip. Keep in mind that persistence and attentiveness, time management, writing/communication skills, analytical/critical thinking skills, and creative problem-solving are chief. Try to become the person that an undergrad or perspective graduate student can look up to. Finally, the moral of this story is “focus on your nested goals” – to be victorious you must find glory in the little things. And in my opinion PhD is a million little things carefully put together to make your bigger picture. Remember that your primary goal is to get a PhD, but your little goals along the way; the year, semester, month, and week aren’t to get a PhD, but make visible steps towards that ultimate goal. So hammer away at the mountain called PhD– knocking off little bits at a time.

“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” -Benjamin Franklin

Student Stories

Taking Your Elevator Pitch to the Next Level

Leave a comment
By Nate Girer 

We’ve all experienced it as graduate students.
You try explaining your research to your friends and their eyes get big, as if you’ve just tried to teach them Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Or when asked about your research at a scientific conference, you’re left with empty nods and an unenthusiastic, “nice, that sounds interesting”.

An important part of graduate student life is being able to effectively explain your research to other people, whether they be attendees at a conference, a speaker you’re having lunch with, or even just Mom and Dad.

In fact, graduate students should have an “elevator pitch” ready for such situations. By “elevator pitch”, I mean a quick and simple explanation of their research, lasting no longer than a typical ride on the elevator. Of course, fitting all your research into a short 2-minute pitch is actually quite difficult. So to help take your elevator pitch to the next level, here are a few tips:

1) Start off your pitch with something identifiable, or perhaps a story

The worst thing you can do is jump right into the nitty-gritty of your research. Instead, start by relating your research to something everyone knows. A person is much more inclined to listen to you if what you have to say is somehow related to his/her life.

Stories also serve as great openers. For example, my research involves the cellular receptor known as aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR). But I don’t mention that at all when I start. Rather, I start with a quick story about a chemical that binds to the receptor, known as dioxin, and how it was once used to poison the Ukrainian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko. Sounds way more interesting, right?

2) Make it a conversation

The surest way to lose somebody’s attention is to talk at them, not with them. Don’t just regurgitate your pitch from memory, make it conversational. A really good way to keep your listener involved is to ask questions. Not only does this force listeners to pay attention to you, but asking questions allows you to gauge their knowledge of the subject area and determine if they’re following your words or not.

3) Teach along the way

Obviously, science is a complicated subject. Not everyone is going to know the terms you begin spewing out, so be prepared to teach them along the way. When I explain my work, I realize that not everyone knows what a cellular receptor is. However, a quick hand-gesture of my fist (the ligand) fitting inside the palm of my other hand (the receptor) provides a pretty decent 2-second introduction about what a cellular receptor does. Small lessons like this can go a long way for someone without a science background!

4) Keep it simple

In science, it’s all about the details. In real life, no one has time for all the details. When giving your pitch, you should make sure to leave these out. Think about your project in its broadest terms. For example, my work seeks to understand how AHR expression in the liver influences fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) regulation. We’re also interested in understanding AHR’s role in hepatic energy storage, fatty acid metabolism, glucose metabolism, and the insulin pathway. To investigate this, we use several different mouse models that carry unique genetic variations of the AHR gene, and challenge them with different diet compositions.

However, all I really need to say for my pitch is that, “We examine the role of AHR in our body’s metabolic processes by looking at how genetic variations of this gene affect the body, and how changes to our diet can further alter those effects.”

5) Be excited about it!

Another major issue I see all the time is that people show a lack of enthusiasm when giving their pitch. How am I supposed to get interested in what you do if you don’t seem interested. As much as we hate repeating our pitch over and over (especially at scientific conferences), you don’t want that to show on your face. A smile here and there, or a positive tone of voice can make a world of difference.

6) Practice, Practice, Practice!

If you want to be good at something, you have to put in the effort to practice. Your elevator pitch won’t be perfect after one afternoon. Try practicing it in the shower or in front of your pet. Once you develop your initial pitch, you should always be thinking of ways to improve upon it. The fact that you’re reading my blog post is a good sign, but don’t stop there. Seek advice from other sources, too!

7) Be flexible!

Last, but not least, be flexible. Your audience won’t be the same each time you give your pitch, therefore your pitch shouldn’t be the same either. While you should have a solid of idea of what your pitch is, don’t keep a word-for-word copy of the pitch in your head. Remember point #2, be conversational!  Be ready to take the pitch in different directions, depending upon who you are talking to.

Personally, I keep three “versions” of the elevator pitch in my head. One is really simple and fast, best used for people who know nothing about science; for people who have some semblance of scientific knowledge, I have an extended version of it. Finally, I have an entirely separate pitch that I like to use at scientific conferences.

Alumni Spotlight

Catching up with Rong Wang, Genetics 2014 Graduate

Leave a comment
By 

Over the last year, I have helped to organize numerous seminars and Q&A sessions with people from all different areas of science, from those working in the pharmaceutical industry to science editing to patent law. I truly love hearing each individual’s story about his/her career path, and almost all of them have said that they never expected to take the path that they did. Following that, they then offer this advice: keep an open mind about what you want to do with your PhD in the life sciences and seize every opportunity you get, even if it wasn’t what you planned on doing in the first place.

IMG_1018
Dr. Rong Wang, Genetics 2014 Graduate

I had the distinct pleasure of learning from and working alongside Dr. Rong Wang for the first three years of my PhD program, and to say that I felt a bit lost when she graduated and moved on to her first “big kid” job is an understatement. Rong landed her first job after grad school working for a small biotech company in Santa Barbara, CA. Like many of the other stories I have heard before, if you had asked Rong even just a year prior what her career plans were, she never would have expected that to be the case.

Right before she left Penn State, Rong sat down with Dr. Melissa Rolls, Chair of the Molecular, Cellular, and Integrative Biosciences program, to discuss the process of how she went about applying for jobs in industry and to offer her personal advice for how to be successful in getting a job – you can find that article here.

I recently had a catch-up session with Rong to see how life after graduate school was going and got to learn a bit more about the industry life now that she has had close to a year of experience under her belt. Rong has since moved to another biotech company in San Francisco.

The “dream” wasn’t necessarily to get into biotech

When Rong first began applying for jobs, she didn’t necessarily focus her search to only biotech companies. She felt that after spending 20+ years in school, she wanted to experience a different life and working style outside of academia but was open to really anything new. However, she did know that she wanted to take her problem solving skills to a level where she could help with the development of specific products.

At both biotech companies she has worked for, Rong’s job title has been an R&D Scientist. As an R&D Scientist, she mainly develops diagnostic products. However, working for smaller companies means that she has had other random responsibilities, including market researching, patent writing, and literature writing.

Rong also has the experience of transitioning to a different company. She found that getting her foot in the door and having the previous experience helped her have a better sense of what kind of job fit her the best. It helped that she now had more connections and a stronger network when going through the process of applying for a job after already working in the industry. She also realized the importance of understanding the style and culture of the company you’re working for and how some companies may fit one’s personality better than others.

Industry vs. academia: personal perspective

Having only the experience of doing science in an academic setting, Rong’s mind was trained to assess her research projects by their potential to make good stories and publications. In industry, it’s much more than that. Even after almost a year in the industry world, Rong said she still finds it difficult to decide which direction to push her projects in order to balance product development vs. pure research.

Rong, like many graduate students, put in countless hours each week at the lab working evenings and most weekends. Knowing Rong so personally, I was interested to hear how her work-life balance had changed out in the “real world”. While she still puts in about fifty hours a week, those hours are spent during the week days. “Of course, I would like to spend some time during the weekend for my work so that I can do a little better,” said Rong, which was no surprise to me.

Final pieces of advice

What was pretty comforting to hear from Rong was that after spending a year in the biotech industry, she still finds that there is a lot to learn, and that’s okay, because no one expects you to know everything. The process of getting a PhD is what’s important. “It’s way more critical to obtain a growing mindset and a good habit of learning and applying new knowledge,” said Rong. “I personally think that all you need to learn while you’re in graduate school is what you’re already learning about and doing – understanding background knowledge, developing solid techniques, critically thinking, being eager to learn, and being a hard worker.”

When applying for and interviewing for jobs, Rong stressed the importance of being able to communicate your science to your potential future employers. As a fresh PhD, your studies as a PhD student are all that they have to evaluate you on, so it’s important that you can accurately and succinctly describe the work that you’ve done. The more closely your past experience is related to the job you are applying for, the more likely you are to stand out. Also, if you can show that you have some sort of industry experience, it’s a huge plus (though not a necessity!) – this can be something as simple as your lab having a collaboration with a scientific company or you having an internship experience. (Interested in doing an internship? Check out these resources!)

Finally, start applying for jobs as early as possible, and make sure each resume and cover letter you send out is customized for that specific job (resources for writing these can be found here!). Also, after you apply for a job, write a follow-up letter to catch up – this extra effort can really help you to stand out and increase your chances of getting an interview.

The Cavener Lab (and Mark!) at Rong’s graduation
Student Stories

3 Things I Learned at the Graduate Women in Science (GWIS) National Meeting

Leave a comment
By 

A few weeks ago, the Penn State chapter of the National Graduate Women in Science (GWIS) organization hosted their national meeting in State College, PA. The topic of the conference was science outreach, and seeing as my science blog is all about public outreach I decided it would be a good idea to attend!

Apparently, there’s a lot of good things going on at Penn State in terms of science outreach. For starters, Penn State hosts a science summer camp for K-12 kids every year called “Science-U”, which advocates science literary in youth. In the fall, they also run a public science fair event known as “Discovery-U“. And then of course, there are people like me at Penn State who are trying to get working adults more interested and in tune with science through online blogging.

But enough about Penn State! More importantly, the GWIS conference was an effort to educate graduate students on science communication. Particular emphasis was put on becoming an effective science communicator, as well as exposure to the many different types of jobs involved with science outreach. Rather than walk you through the entirety of the conference however, I’m going to tell you the three main take-home points:

1. Science outreach is tough!

Teaching string theory, the structure of an atom, or the intricacies of a cell to the average person is really quite difficult. Scientists have been researching these topics for centuries! So how exactly do you convert centuries of scientific inquiry into a 30-second elevator pitch that the average person can understand — let alone, want to understand? Of course, if your target audience is children, the task is even more daunting because of their short attention span.

While the average PhD-holder might see careers in science outreach as being beneath them, this couldn’t be further from the truth. True, we’re probably too overqualified to be the volunteers explaining science at the various outreach events, but it takes a PhD to figure out what to say in the first place! In reality, science outreach involves a lot of thinking outside the box. You’re essentially trying to explain the scientific world through a series of simple metaphors. Ultimately, the number one take-home message of the conference was that science outreach is really tough, and there aren’t enough scientists doing it.

2. If anything, Academia should be considered the alternative career for scientists

In the past, getting your PhD pretty much meant you were going to eventually become a professor. In fact, a 1973 NSF survey of PhD-holders in the biological sciences found that over 55% went on to a tenured or tenure-track faculty position. At that time, any other career track (e.g. scientific writing, industry research, or patent law) was considered an “alternative” career. However, today’s situation is quite different. By 2006, the NSF survey showed that merely 20% of PhD-holders went on to hold a tenured or tenure-track position within 6 years of graduation. Thus, 80% were either stuck in a never-ending post-doctoral position or going into these so-called “alternative” careers. So in the end, what we refer to as “alternative careers” in science are quickly becoming the norm, and the “traditional” academic route has quickly become the alternative.

3. Don’t worry, everything will be okay in the end.

Perhaps the greatest (personal) takeaway from this conference was that no matter what you end up doing, everything is going to be fine in the end. As graduate students, we are always worrying about work/life balance, getting a job with a good salary, raising a family, etc. As the speakers pointed out though, these are struggles all people go through in life. Besides, getting a PhD is about more than just becoming an expert in your field, it’s also about becoming an expert on how to learn. PhDs are the ultimate learners and can pick up new topics very quickly. Combine this with an already deep understanding of science, and we become very marketable for nearly any job. So no matter what you end up doing, you will find a job with a decent salary, you will find your personal work/life balance, and if you want to, you will start a family.

Lastly, one thing that was common to all the speakers at the conference was that their path through life was not very clear-cut. They all took twisted, convoluted career paths to get to where they are today. But everyone does this; that’s just life in the 21st century. While we all may envision what we’ll be doing after graduation, things never work out the way you intend them to. Nonetheless, the fact that you’ll have a PhD means that after all the dust settles, you’ll still be fine!

While I can’t package everything that happened at the GWIS National Meeting into a single blog post, hopefully I have done it justice by presenting three of the major themes that were presented. Of course, if you want the full experience, you’ll just have to go to next year’s meeting! Even if you don’t though, attending career development workshops like this is still very crucial for graduate students. Not only do these events provide valuable life lessons, but also an opportunity to network with others. And building bridges is truly the secret to success!

Career Feature

Beverly Purnell: “Scientific Publishing from the Inside Out”

Leave a comment
By 

So what’s next? Industry or academia?

When discussing a graduate student’s future career plans, this is the question that is usually asked: Do you want to do research in industry or academia? What many graduate students don’t realize is that there is a multitude of career paths that are available to them with a Ph.D. in the life sciences, and many of these career paths don’t include bench work at all!

Beverly Purnell photoDr. Beverly Purnell, Senior Editor at Science magazine and Penn State alumnus, made her way back to Happy Valley on May 29, 2015 to speak to students, faculty, and staff in a two-part seminar about her career path and responsibilities as well as about the process of publishing a paper in Science. As a Senior Editor, Purnell serves as a gatekeeper, working as a member of a team that has to turn more than 10,000 submissions into 700 published articles each year.

With 200+ students and faculty present to fill the Berg auditorium in the Life Sciences Building, Purnell’s seminar was the first in the Career Exposure and Professional Development Seminar Series. This seminar series was started by the Huck Graduate Student Advisory Committee (HGSAC), a group of student leaders from the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences and the BMMB graduate program.

In addition to her seminar, there were two opportunities for graduate students to meet with Dr. Purnell in small group settings (no more than eight students). I myself attended one of these small group meetings, and I really enjoyed hearing from Dr. Purnell more one-on-one. Students were able to ask her more personalized question about her career and what it takes to get into a career as a science editor.

Just in case you weren’t able to attend Dr. Purnell’s seminar or you’re just looking for more of the “inside scoop” on being a science editor, the HGSAC sent a follow-up questionnaire to Dr. Purnell to get some extra information about her career and advice she has for young scientists:

What’s your educational background? Is there anything specific that prepared you for your current career?

I graduated from a small liberal arts school with a double major in biology and chemistry and a minor in math.  At Penn State, I obtained a Master’s degree and PhD in the department of Molecular and Cell Biology.

Working in several research areas helped prepare me for the broad coverage of research handled by an editor.  While an undergraduate student, I worked at a USDA Agricultural Research Station with a stone fruit breeder.  Over the summer between undergraduate and graduate school, I had an internship at the NIAID, National Institutes of Health.  My research for the Master’s degree and PhD at Penn State included two different models and systems.  The Master’s research was in sex determination of the nematode C. elegans and my PhD research was on Drosophila basic transcription machinery.  Then my postdoctoral work at the Max Planck Institute of Biophysical Chemistry spanned Drosophila gene regulation and developmental biology.

I feel that the international perspective and exposure gained while doing the postdoc in Germany was helpful—whether communicating with international researchers or for the considerable amount of travel of an editor.

What are your current roles/responsibilities? How have these changed over time?

A Science editor has three major jobs: solicitation, selection, and editing.  Solicitation entails attendance at international meetings and visiting labs to find out about exciting research for possible submission to the journal.  The editing that we do is technical editing.  Copyeditors take care of grammar and style issues.  The largest part of the job is in the selection of papers for publication in Science.  We reject about 75% of papers without in-depth review.  For the remaining 25%, we select international experts to evaluate the work.  Finally, about 1/3 of papers that go to review are published.  These general duties have remained largely the same over time but the areas of editor coverage shift with changes in research trends/advances.

Was this career path something you had always considered?

No, an editing career was not something that crossed my mind.  As I was applying for positions to come back to the U.S. from the postdoc in Germany, I saw the ad for Editor at Science.  The job description sounded very interesting.  I applied for the position at the same time as applying for research positions.  I thought that if I did not enjoy the editing job after about two years, I could still go back to the bench.  However, 18 years have passed and I’m quite happy with my decision.

What skills have made you and others in your field successful? Were there any unexpected skills that you needed to learn?

The science world is constantly shifting. To be successful, an editor must be open-minded in order to discern which advances will take us in a new direction. Listening to and communicating with researchers, as well as keeping up on the literature, are key. This aspect of the editor’s job is separate from written communication. Editors frequently write for a technical or general audience, and this is a skill that continues to develop over the years. However, publishing research extends beyond communication with scientists. Several departments cooperate in the presentation of papers. Once a manuscript has been accepted, editors work with staff in many different departments for copyediting, art and online presentation, commentary, as well as News and public outreach. All of these aspects make for a varied, interesting, and sometimes hectic job.

What’s the most challenging part of your career?

The first year at Science was quite challenging since my work shifted from a very focused area to that which covers many different disciplines.  Editors must keep up on their own topics and papers but also comment on submissions that are circulated from fellow editors. Keeping up on submissions and circulated manuscripts, while at the same time attending international conferences and reading the literature, is challenging and requires considerable dedication and organization.

How do you think your career will change in both the near and distant future?

The means by which science is disseminated is ever-changing.  We have seen a major shift from a focus on the print to the digital product.  I expect that digital features and opportunities as well as social media will continue to expand.

What can a young scientist do to position him or herself for a career in science editing? Any tips on specific ways to network in the field?

Conducting top-notch research is most important.  Editors at Science need to be able to think critically and present work in a clear and logical manner.  Furthermore, participating in science review, such as journal clubs, in-depth review for journals, or evaluating grant proposals for colleagues, can be helpful.

Regarding networking, top international meetings provide networking opportunities—whether presenting a talk or poster or just sitting across the dinner table talking science.  Collaborative science is also helpful in extending one’s reach.

If you weren’t at Science, where do you think or where would you like to be? 

Although some people take editing positions because they are fed up with research, that was not my situation.  I truly enjoyed working at the bench.  If I had not taken the job at Science, I expect that I would be doing research in academia or industry.

Outside of research, the communication and dissemination of science, including education, are areas for which I have a particular interest, so my career might have taken one of those directions.

How easy/difficult is it to balance work and family life in your career as a science editor? 

One reason that I decided to apply for the job as an editor was that I viewed it as a potentially family-friendly job.  Editors often put in long hours, but this is true of most people in the sciences.  I have definitely found it possible to balance work and family life.  Once editors have worked for several years as an Associate Editor, there has been the option to work remotely.  I took advantage of this 14 years ago—after working in the DC office for four years. Telecommuting eliminates time-consuming commuting and allows for more family time.

What advice do you have, about anything, for current graduate students?

Keep your options open.  Many different science avenues can lead to worthwhile and fulfilling positions—at both a personal and professional level.  If something sounds potentially interesting, check it out.