Janeway Society First Friday Seminar Series: Everything You Need to Know About Promotion

Transcript

• 00:00Good to see everybody.
• 00:01Thanks for joining.
• 00:03We were just chatting beforehand
• 00:04with this topic. We were
• 00:05wondering how how many folks
• 00:07would would come on. That
• 00:07was a topic we tried
• 00:08to do good about really
• 00:10talking about quite a bit,
• 00:11so it's good to see
• 00:12a good number of you
• 00:13here. I'm just gonna do
• 00:14very general introductions and then
• 00:15pass it on so we
• 00:16can leave as much time
• 00:17for conversation as possible.
• 00:19But I think we just
• 00:19titled this promotion. So, obviously,
• 00:21a very broad title, but
• 00:23something that's very relevant.
• 00:24So we're gonna start things
• 00:26off. Jonathan Grauer is gonna
• 00:27who, as you all know,
• 00:28is the assistant dean for
• 00:29faculty affairs, is gonna give
• 00:30a little bit of an
• 00:31overview. But, again, in this
• 00:32kind of mode of trying
• 00:34to make sure we have
• 00:34this conversational, and then we
• 00:36have three esteemed panelists who
• 00:37are here with us today.
• 00:39Lauren Sansing, who's a professor
• 00:40of neurology and vice chair
• 00:42for faculty affairs in neurology,
• 00:44Peter Gruber who's Professor of
• 00:45Surgery and Vice Chair of
• 00:48Research for Surgery,
• 00:49and then finally Ifat Levy
• 00:51who's Elizabeth Meares and House
• 00:53Jamieson Professor of Comparative Medicine,
• 00:55also the Vice Chair for
• 00:56Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in
• 00:58comparative
• 00:59medicine. So with that, I'm
• 01:00gonna go ahead and pass
• 01:01it on to Jonathan. Just
• 01:02one note, if you all
• 01:03have questions that come up,
• 01:04if you want to leave
• 01:05those in the chat, and
• 01:06then when we get to
• 01:07the panel, if you wanna
• 01:08raise your hand so you
• 01:08can feel free to jump
• 01:09in as well.
• 01:12Great.
• 01:13Well, hello, everybody.
• 01:14It's always hard, I find,
• 01:16to really have an engaging
• 01:17talk on Zoom, and I
• 01:19understand everyone's doing something and
• 01:21videos off not seeing people.
• 01:23So
• 01:24I I really was gonna
• 01:25try to engage you with
• 01:26just kinda talking a little
• 01:28bit, instead of slides that
• 01:29everyone
• 01:30doesn't really pay so much
• 01:31attention to and kinda have
• 01:32it more conversational. So in
• 01:33addition to you're saying anything
• 01:34in the chat, I'm fine
• 01:35just speaking up and and
• 01:37dragging if you want along
• 01:38the way.
• 01:40Probably the panelists will kind
• 01:41of give you more of
• 01:41what you want in terms
• 01:43of kind of their sense
• 01:44of things and their opinions,
• 01:46and I'll be there to
• 01:47weigh in in any way.
• 01:48So thank you for having
• 01:50me.
• 01:50You know, in the vast
• 01:52majority of times when we
• 01:53have this conversation,
• 01:56we're talking when we're talking
• 01:57to the latter faculty about,
• 01:59the academic clinician and the
• 02:00clinician educator scholar pack because
• 02:03by numbers,
• 02:04those are certainly the the
• 02:06biggest tracks at the school
• 02:07of medicine.
• 02:08But that's not what I'm
• 02:10gonna focus on today, and
• 02:11I'm happy to go back
• 02:12and do any talk about
• 02:13that because this group is
• 02:16largely gonna be on what
• 02:17we would consider the research
• 02:18intensive tracks.
• 02:19At least that's my understanding
• 02:20of the group. And so
• 02:22where I was gonna kind
• 02:23of focus my efforts.
• 02:26When we're talking to those,
• 02:27just to kind of a
• 02:28brief mention, kind of who
• 02:29are kind of on the
• 02:30border of, you know, kind
• 02:32of clinician, educator, scholar,
• 02:34Some well, maybe people might
• 02:36think they're in that direction,
• 02:37but one of the really
• 02:38simple ways for us to
• 02:39talk about it is that
• 02:40group and typically
• 02:42is, you know, gonna be
• 02:44in the less than fifty
• 02:44percent external
• 02:46support
• 02:47funding type mechanism. Whereas this
• 02:49group, certainly, they're depending on
• 02:51the department and the clinical
• 02:53department, those in the basic
• 02:54science, much more in terms
• 02:55of their external funding support.
• 02:57So it's just a kind
• 02:58of an easy way to
• 02:59kind of think about the
• 03:00fact that it really we're
• 03:01kind of
• 03:03all contributing to the the
• 03:04missions of the school of
• 03:05medicine in different ways, but
• 03:07it's really is a distinct
• 03:08group for you guys here
• 03:09where we're gonna be talking
• 03:11more about
• 03:12traditional clinician,
• 03:14scientists and investigator
• 03:15tracks. And so
• 03:17that's where I'll focus.
• 03:18And and one of the
• 03:19things, just to put it
• 03:20out there early, is it
• 03:21not just the amount of
• 03:22research, but when we're gonna
• 03:24talk about promotions,
• 03:26is to kinda keep in
• 03:27mind, like, where you are
• 03:30in this journey.
• 03:32You know, I think, you
• 03:33know, especially through the COVID
• 03:35extensions and others, like, where
• 03:36you I think most of
• 03:37you will all kind of
• 03:38be very cognizant of your
• 03:39track.
• 03:40But knowing where you are
• 03:41in the clock, even if
• 03:43you're not approaching
• 03:44kind of a promotions phase,
• 03:45I think is really important.
• 03:47And I tend to direct
• 03:49people to
• 03:50to Workday, first of all,
• 03:51to look at where your
• 03:52track is. Because if you've
• 03:54lost track of where it
• 03:55is, if you go to
• 03:56Workday and look under the
• 03:57academic tab, it will have
• 04:00your term
• 04:01there.
• 04:03Doesn't always give you the
• 04:04full information about the clock.
• 04:05Your departments are great resources
• 04:07to talk to about that.
• 04:08You know, part of the
• 04:09yearly review, I would encourage
• 04:11you guys with the whole
• 04:11FDAC thing that that should
• 04:13always be part of the
• 04:14conversation,
• 04:15not just to kinda keep
• 04:16it in mind, but to
• 04:18keep that trajectory of all
• 04:19the things we're gonna talk
• 04:20about with the promotions process,
• 04:23to put that in its
• 04:24perspective.
• 04:26When we talk about the
• 04:27clock, just to remind you,
• 04:28and I suspect most of
• 04:29you are aware of this,
• 04:31but for the, clinician sciences
• 04:34for the CS track, you
• 04:35know, the the clock is
• 04:36really for the assistant,
• 04:38rank, and it's a six
• 04:39year maximum there. For traditional,
• 04:42it's six years as assistant
• 04:44and ten years to tenure,
• 04:46meaning that there's can be
• 04:47that addition there is that
• 04:48additional period of associate professor
• 04:50on term. And for the
• 04:52investigator track, it's six years
• 04:53of assistance
• 04:54and then maximum of ten
• 04:56years as associate.
• 04:57So just to keep in
• 04:58mind those clock things, and
• 05:00all the information I'm gonna
• 05:01talk about
• 05:03is on the web.
• 05:05So I would tell you
• 05:06that in general, you know,
• 05:08whenever you're questioning things, not
• 05:10only as I'm gonna keep
• 05:10telling you that your department
• 05:11is gonna be a huge
• 05:12resource, but we've done an
• 05:13enormous amount of work to
• 05:15try to make the web
• 05:15very approachable
• 05:17so that all the information
• 05:18is easily accessible there. We're
• 05:20all happy to take any
• 05:21phone calls anytime in addition,
• 05:23but your department's gonna know
• 05:24the best in terms of
• 05:25your department specific guidance.
• 05:28Okay?
• 05:30So as I say, you
• 05:31know, each year and then
• 05:33I'm gonna call out,
• 05:34in a good way, you
• 05:35know, with all Nick's efforts
• 05:37that he's done with the
• 05:38FDAC process,
• 05:40that this is really gonna
• 05:41be kind of an important
• 05:42part of just on a
• 05:44regular basis checking in and
• 05:45having that discussion.
• 05:47When we talk about the
• 05:48promotions process, it's kind of
• 05:50rough rules of thumb when
• 05:52you talk about assistant professor,
• 05:53associate professor, full professor. It's
• 05:55that kind of evolution
• 05:57from having a local presence
• 06:00to a to a regional
• 06:02presence to a national.
• 06:03What does that mean? Like,
• 06:04how do we measure that?
• 06:05What what's the kind of
• 06:07information behind that? Well, I
• 06:09mean, we're all gonna be
• 06:10doing our best work trying
• 06:11to work in advance, each
• 06:12things, in terms of the
• 06:14different missions, but it's really
• 06:16a question of getting out
• 06:17there and having a presence.
• 06:19So some of that's gonna
• 06:20be talks,
• 06:22invited talks, talks that, you
• 06:24know, are research based, talks,
• 06:26kind of really I I
• 06:28would encourage you following up
• 06:29on those. That really does
• 06:31shine through in terms of
• 06:32the promotion process.
• 06:34Funding,
• 06:35you know, as we especially
• 06:36have that conversation going from
• 06:38assistant to associate professor, things
• 06:40like, for example, going from
• 06:41a k award to an
• 06:42r o one, kind of
• 06:43looking to kind of transition
• 06:44to independent funding is kind
• 06:46of the classic thing. A
• 06:48lot of questions come up
• 06:49with all the
• 06:51evolving federal world with grant
• 06:54stuff. I'd say we really
• 06:55in our world, we kinda
• 06:56now are taught thinking synonymously
• 06:58about large foundation grants as
• 07:01federal
• 07:02grants in terms of things.
• 07:03I think just important to
• 07:04have that in mind.
• 07:06It's It's never been something
• 07:07where there's, like, hard lines
• 07:08on things, but things to
• 07:09keep in mind.
• 07:11In terms of kind of
• 07:12the the scholarly outputs,
• 07:15you know, certainly, we're looking
• 07:16for scholarly outputs. Interestingly,
• 07:18because of the more
• 07:22basic science focused work that
• 07:24we typically see on these
• 07:25research intensive tracks,
• 07:27if anything, we see actually
• 07:29less papers
• 07:31on the more research intensive
• 07:33tracks by numbers as we
• 07:34do on the more clinically
• 07:36focused tracks,
• 07:38but usually in higher impact
• 07:40journals. And so it's kind
• 07:41of that difference of publishing
• 07:43phenotypes.
• 07:44We're often asked about specific
• 07:45numbers, and it's not that
• 07:47we're trying to be vague,
• 07:48but there's just such variability
• 07:50in terms of impact, types
• 07:51of papers, where things are,
• 07:53that there really aren't exact
• 07:55numbers, but it's looking for
• 07:56the evolution, having some
• 07:58kind of, you know, importance
• 08:00to the trajectory,
• 08:01evolution to first, last authors.
• 08:03Those are all things that
• 08:04we're kind of keeping in
• 08:06mind as part of the
• 08:07promotion process.
• 08:10Involvement in national societies, again,
• 08:12just kinda going through different
• 08:13things that are kinda thought
• 08:14of. You know, great to
• 08:15be members of societies, but
• 08:17one of the things as
• 08:18we go through the promotion
• 08:19process is really having more
• 08:21active roles on committees,
• 08:23doing different roles within them
• 08:25are all things that are
• 08:26being looked at.
• 08:28So as things evolve, as
• 08:30you're kind of mindful of
• 08:31track, as you're working to
• 08:33advance each of these types
• 08:34of things,
• 08:36the the rough time frame
• 08:38for a promotions process
• 08:40is about a year and
• 08:41a half. It's a long
• 08:42process, and people think, how
• 08:44could that be so long?
• 08:45By the time you start
• 08:46discussions, you put together things.
• 08:50Usually, the departments are gonna
• 08:51then have discussions
• 08:53in in different
• 08:54forums that they will go
• 08:55ahead and say, yes, we
• 08:57are supportive of somebody for
• 08:58the promotion process.
• 08:59That then triggers going out
• 09:01for letters, which in today's
• 09:02world is a lengthy journey
• 09:04of getting people to be
• 09:05responsive for letters, and then
• 09:07coming back to the department,
• 09:08and then going to the
• 09:09school.
• 09:09All of that is quite
• 09:11a lengthy process.
• 09:13It's usually done with a
• 09:14lot of discussions within the
• 09:16departments.
• 09:17The departments then, you know,
• 09:19come out as being supportive
• 09:21to move things forward.
• 09:23And some some faculty feel
• 09:25like, oh my goodness, each
• 09:26step of this journey is
• 09:27gonna be kind of a
• 09:28steeper step. I will say
• 09:29that it's really the departments
• 09:30that are typically the highest
• 09:32bar for moving things forward.
• 09:35Certainly,
• 09:36the majority of things that
• 09:38come to the school level
• 09:40are supportive.
• 09:41There are discussions. It's sometimes
• 09:43there's, you know, recommendations in
• 09:44terms of tracks or kinda
• 09:46time frame,
• 09:47but those are really usually
• 09:50the more kind of
• 09:52the the the departments typically
• 09:53take a lot of pride
• 09:54in putting forward people that
• 09:55will be successful. The the
• 09:57role of the committee is
• 09:58really to be central committees
• 10:00are to be supportive and
• 10:01to try to help make
• 10:02things aligned and consistent,
• 10:05across the board.
• 10:07I will also point out
• 10:08that although I kinda pointed
• 10:10out looking at where you
• 10:11are with regard to your
• 10:14terms,
• 10:15not
• 10:16every promotion needs to wait
• 10:17to an end of term.
• 10:18Right? The defaults will be
• 10:20two terms as assistant, two
• 10:21terms as associate,
• 10:23but there are plenty of
• 10:24people, especially if the associate
• 10:25going to full where that
• 10:27number is more variable. It
• 10:28does not have to wait
• 10:29to end a term.
• 10:31Worth keeping in mind that
• 10:32if those are the averages,
• 10:34that there's often a conversation
• 10:35when somebody is coming up
• 10:37earlier and out of that
• 10:39average, which it doesn't have
• 10:40to be, is why are
• 10:41they different than their peers?
• 10:42Right? I mean, we all
• 10:43are in a system that
• 10:44is set up to be
• 10:45relatively similar, and there's reasons
• 10:46why we're not. And some
• 10:48people advancing kind of at
• 10:49a at a more
• 10:51quick clip. And if it's
• 10:52beyond the clock, sometimes at
• 10:53a slower clip. But keeping
• 10:55in mind, like, why is
• 10:56it different? Because that's a
• 10:57question that will come up
• 10:58for those writing letters of
• 11:00of,
• 11:01reference, as well as those
• 11:03who are kind of reviewing
• 11:04things and thinking about the
• 11:05equity across the departments.
• 11:08What can you be doing
• 11:09along the way other than
• 11:10having those discussions? The thing
• 11:12I would really
• 11:13strongly advocate is keeping in
• 11:15mind the documents that are
• 11:16needed as part of the
• 11:17process and keeping them update
• 11:19and having those discussions along
• 11:20the way. So CV one.
• 11:23CV one is really kind
• 11:24of the
• 11:26kind of typical thing we
• 11:27all think of that represents
• 11:28our career. I always tell
• 11:30people there's no way you
• 11:31can keep it as
• 11:33you know, it will never
• 11:34be as strong as one
• 11:36that you keep up along
• 11:37the way. You're gonna think,
• 11:38I'll remember this in a
• 11:39year, and and you won't
• 11:40remember it in a year.
• 11:41Maybe you will. I wouldn't
• 11:42remember it in a year.
• 11:45I actually use my CV
• 11:46as a as a tracking
• 11:47document for things I'm even
• 11:49working on, and then every
• 11:50so often, I kinda polish
• 11:51it as one that I
• 11:52share with people. And I
• 11:52would encourage you. I think
• 11:53it's a great way to
• 11:54do it.
• 11:55The Beatrix system does have
• 11:57the CV builder profile. That
• 11:59can be very nice. It
• 12:00kinda forces
• 12:01things into the right,
• 12:03formatting in the way.
• 12:06Not everybody likes it. It's
• 12:07great for publications because it
• 12:09pulls in publications. It's not
• 12:10great for talks, and so
• 12:12it takes a little bit
• 12:12of extra work there. Has
• 12:13the advantage that when you
• 12:14put your stuff in there,
• 12:15it then populates your profile.
• 12:18So so it's certainly something
• 12:20that is worth considering.
• 12:22But I would say keeping
• 12:23that up to date. And
• 12:24the other thing is looking
• 12:25at the CV two.
• 12:28CV one, for those of
• 12:29you who are really focused
• 12:30on that, you're thinking about
• 12:32it as what's externally visible.
• 12:34You know, if you went
• 12:34searching for any one of
• 12:35us, you could find most
• 12:37of what's on a CV
• 12:38one out there on the
• 12:39Internet.
• 12:40Whereas CV two is your
• 12:41chance to express what you
• 12:43want. And, again, it very
• 12:44much aligns with what's part
• 12:45of the FDAC process.
• 12:47But I would say keeping
• 12:48that, even if you did
• 12:49it in, like, a bulleted
• 12:50form, trying to write down
• 12:53what's on it. I mean,
• 12:54it's essentially
• 12:54five essays, five short essays,
• 12:56and there's word limits not
• 12:58to be punitive, but to
• 13:00try to be helpful and
• 13:01try to kinda collapse it
• 13:02down. It's, like, essentially an
• 13:04abstract, an overview of who
• 13:05who you are,
• 13:06a
• 13:09contribution
• 13:10statement,
• 13:11in terms of citizenship,
• 13:13and then each of the
• 13:14missions as applicable,
• 13:16clinical education and research.
• 13:18And and it's your chance
• 13:20to express things of what's
• 13:21important to you. And sure,
• 13:23the output
• 13:24from a CV one largely
• 13:26represents that,
• 13:27but having your voice to
• 13:30kind of put behind that's
• 13:31really important. There are data
• 13:32fields also for things that
• 13:34don't exactly fit into CV
• 13:35one because people are always
• 13:37saying, well, look, I do
• 13:38this. Don't you don't you
• 13:39want that data? Well, we
• 13:40do want the full data,
• 13:41but there's kind of a
• 13:42divide where things that don't
• 13:43fit into CV one are
• 13:44on CV two.
• 13:46So I think tell you
• 13:47that
• 13:48working on those documents along
• 13:49the way with those conversations,
• 13:52keeping in track in mind
• 13:53those things that are the
• 13:54priorities,
• 13:55it's really what I would
• 13:56encourage you on.
• 13:59As I say, departments are
• 14:00the greatest resource,
• 14:01in terms of the faculty,
• 14:04you know, people each each
• 14:06department has a faculty point
• 14:07person, vice chair usually, in
• 14:09this role. There's staff to
• 14:10help with more of the
• 14:11logistical mechanical things.
• 14:13We're available from,
• 14:15central. I'll give a shout
• 14:17out. We do especially as
• 14:18we're getting into this kind
• 14:19of mid part of the,
• 14:21academic year, we do run
• 14:22regular workshops where we have
• 14:24whole hours on each one
• 14:26of these pieces related to
• 14:27the AMP process, and we'd
• 14:29love to have people come
• 14:30and join and have that
• 14:31conversation.
• 14:33It's by Zoom. They're usually
• 14:34Wednesdays at four. There's no
• 14:35ideal time. The more we
• 14:36put in the workday, the
• 14:37more people complain with that.
• 14:38The more we put in
• 14:38the evening, people don't like
• 14:39interfering with the rest of
• 14:40their life. But we try
• 14:41to do it at the
• 14:42end of the day, and
• 14:43we'd love to have you
• 14:44join. So
• 14:45that's really what I was
• 14:46gonna give as an overview
• 14:47just to get the conversation
• 14:48started. I hope that's kinda
• 14:50gives a little bit of
• 14:50background.
• 14:52Excellent. Thank you so much,
• 14:53Jonathan. Definitely appreciate that overview
• 14:55and your attention as to
• 14:56the, the group that we
• 14:57have here as well and
• 14:58the things that are relevant
• 14:59for this group. So what
• 15:01we'll do next is go
• 15:02and have each of our
• 15:03panelists give kind of an
• 15:04overview, maybe kind of a
• 15:05five minute introduction, particular
• 15:06particularly things that you all
• 15:08think would be good take
• 15:09home points for folks here,
• 15:10and I will say even
• 15:11specifically
• 15:12in your roles as vice
• 15:13chair. So, Lauren, could we
• 15:15start with you?
• 15:17Sure.
• 15:18It's great to be here
• 15:19and,
• 15:21talking to you about this.
• 15:22I'll say that in my
• 15:24role in the department of
• 15:25neurology,
• 15:26the promotions process is probably
• 15:28the biggest part of this
• 15:30vice chair hat. You know,
• 15:32it does cover a bunch
• 15:33of other domains, but by
• 15:35far away, the most sort
• 15:37of angst in work and
• 15:38and meeting with people is
• 15:39is all around the promotions
• 15:40process.
• 15:43So I'm professor of, neurology.
• 15:45I have a secondary in
• 15:46immunobiology.
• 15:47I'm a basic and translational
• 15:50stroke researcher.
• 15:51So I work with animal
• 15:52models and,
• 15:54human samples.
• 15:57Since we're talking about tracks
• 15:58and promotions,
• 15:59I had a
• 16:01large number of meetings when
• 16:02I was going up for
• 16:03associate here about traditional versus
• 16:06CS, and there's always sort
• 16:07of gray areas at the
• 16:09borders of tracks.
• 16:11And so I'm, you know,
• 16:12happy to sort of talk
• 16:13about some of those kinds
• 16:15of decisions,
• 16:16if it's helpful.
• 16:19And
• 16:20I run the I direct
• 16:21the bachelor's in health sciences
• 16:23program. And as I mentioned,
• 16:24I'm vice chair of of
• 16:25faculty and academic affairs.
• 16:27So that's just a little
• 16:28bit about me and the
• 16:29perspectives that I bring to
• 16:30this.
• 16:31I see a couple of
• 16:32my own junior faculty mentees
• 16:34on the call, which is
• 16:35great to see.
• 16:39I also spent the morning
• 16:40writing three letters of reference
• 16:43for faculty going up for
• 16:46associate with tenure at other
• 16:47institutions this morning.
• 16:50And these are arm's length
• 16:52letters. So maybe I'll just
• 16:53take a couple minutes and
• 16:54talk about letters in more
• 16:55detail since that's at, like,
• 16:56the top of my mind.
• 16:59Jonathan mentioned getting people to
• 17:01write letters. Yeah. They take
• 17:02time.
• 17:03It it's an ask. And
• 17:05so it's not easy to,
• 17:08find people and get them
• 17:10to commit and get them
• 17:11to submit letters on time
• 17:12for those AMP meetings.
• 17:15What
• 17:17each track and at each
• 17:18level, there's a different number
• 17:20of letters that are required
• 17:21with your packet,
• 17:23for your department to vote
• 17:24on. And a
• 17:27number of them so for
• 17:29example, for CS at the
• 17:30associate level, four of them
• 17:32have to be arm's length.
• 17:34And what arm's length means
• 17:36generally
• 17:37is that you can have
• 17:39worked with the person or
• 17:40published with the person. So
• 17:41they have to know you
• 17:43and your letter writers have
• 17:45to be at the rank
• 17:46you're going up for promotion
• 17:47for or or beyond that.
• 17:49So these are people that
• 17:50are senior to you in
• 17:51the field,
• 17:53at other academic centers
• 17:55that have never worked with
• 17:56you, have never published with
• 17:58you,
• 17:59but know you or are
• 18:00willing to put in some
• 18:02time getting to review your
• 18:03materials
• 18:04through your academic reputation.
• 18:08So that's people that you
• 18:09may have met at a
• 18:10conference and talked about your
• 18:12science after you gave a
• 18:14a fantastic
• 18:15presentation or, you you know,
• 18:16you spend some time at
• 18:18posters and were chatting about
• 18:19science and they got to
• 18:20know you, and now they
• 18:21see that you're going up
• 18:22for promotion. They get a
• 18:23request to write a letter,
• 18:25and they're willing to sort
• 18:25of say yes and and
• 18:26do it.
• 18:29I think that's one of
• 18:30the harder things. You know,
• 18:31if you're being diligent like
• 18:33Jonathan suggested and you're keeping
• 18:35your CV up to date
• 18:36as you and your CV
• 18:37two up to date over,
• 18:39you know, your over the
• 18:40years,
• 18:41when you finally set get
• 18:43all your documents together,
• 18:45you get handed the reference
• 18:47referee list template. And all
• 18:48of a sudden, you're like,
• 18:50oh, I have to come
• 18:50up with names of people
• 18:52so that,
• 18:53and names of people who
• 18:54are going to say yes
• 18:55to to writing my reference
• 18:56letters. So start thinking about
• 18:58that too and start thinking
• 19:00about,
• 19:00talking with your mentors each
• 19:02year about who might be
• 19:03people to
• 19:04get to know in the
• 19:05field to,
• 19:07maybe when you're coming up
• 19:08to a big, you know,
• 19:09national or international conference you
• 19:11wanna seek out.
• 19:12Talk to them about their
• 19:13science because you wanna expand
• 19:15your visibility and expand your
• 19:16network,
• 19:17but also because you're trying
• 19:19to, you know, sort of
• 19:20get to know people in
• 19:21the field who can help
• 19:22you out.
• 19:24And that is, like, we'll
• 19:25bring up your name for,
• 19:27you know, for potential speakers
• 19:28at another conference coming up,
• 19:30or we'll, you know, think
• 19:32about you for an invited
• 19:33review. But there also may
• 19:35be,
• 19:36you know, other opportunities for
• 19:37you to develop professionally.
• 19:39But, also, they may be
• 19:40people that you are like,
• 19:41They've you know? I had
• 19:43a great talk about my
• 19:44science with that person, and
• 19:45I've never worked with them.
• 19:46They're a great referee.
• 19:49So maybe I'll stop there,
• 19:50and I'll, pass it along.
• 19:52And then I wanna have
• 19:53lots of time for questions.
• 19:55Excellent. Thank you so much,
• 19:56Lauren. It's really helpful practical
• 19:58advice too. I'm also impressed
• 19:59that you're doing three letters
• 20:00at once this morning. I
• 20:01don't know if you're super
• 20:01efficient, but
• 20:03They're all over duty.
• 20:05Okay. So there's context.
• 20:08Fair enough. I was given
• 20:09today is the deadline.
• 20:11Yep. Yep.
• 20:12Excellent. Thanks so much. Peter,
• 20:14can we go to you
• 20:15next?
• 20:17Sure. So my name is
• 20:18Peter Gruber, and, I'm as,
• 20:20I was introduced the vice
• 20:22chair of, research for the
• 20:23department of surgery. And my
• 20:25laboratory works at the intersection
• 20:26of genetics and development, although
• 20:28we have some clinical work
• 20:30that we're reporting as well.
• 20:32I don't see anybody from
• 20:34the Department of Surgery that
• 20:35I recognize on the call,
• 20:36but perhaps because,
• 20:39we are a procedural department,
• 20:41some of the things that
• 20:42I talk about might be
• 20:43relevant to those in the
• 20:45procedural fields.
• 20:47First of all, following,
• 20:49Jonathan and Lauren is great
• 20:50because they've already talked about
• 20:51everything that's important and done
• 20:52a great job. So thank
• 20:53you for that.
• 20:55I don't thank you for
• 20:56embarrassing me that I haven't
• 20:57done those two letters that
• 20:58are on my desk yet,
• 20:59but I will try to
• 21:01get to them this weekend.
• 21:03They do take a lot
• 21:04of time, but they are
• 21:05important and they're part of,
• 21:06they'll be part of your
• 21:07role in the future.
• 21:09I guess the few things
• 21:10I wanted to emphasize,
• 21:12again, that Jonathan and Lauren
• 21:13have already talked about a
• 21:14bit are, making sure that
• 21:16communication
• 21:17between
• 21:18yourself, your mentor,
• 21:20your division chief,
• 21:22and,
• 21:24the people involved,
• 21:26depending on the structure of
• 21:27your department,
• 21:28in the promotion process is
• 21:30critical.
• 21:31And it's not just doing
• 21:32it, you know, at year
• 21:33three or maybe just during
• 21:35the FDAC, which I find
• 21:36a very helpful tool.
• 21:40It's important to keep that
• 21:41line of communication,
• 21:42throughout your entire,
• 21:44early career.
• 21:46What you need to try
• 21:47to do, at least what
• 21:48we focus on, is make
• 21:49sure that people tell a
• 21:51story.
• 21:52Certainly in our in our
• 21:54fields,
• 21:55procedural fields, it's actually quite
• 21:57easy to publish a huge
• 21:58amount.
• 22:00Often, none of which is
• 22:02really of a particularly high
• 22:03quality.
• 22:05But it's really important to
• 22:06focus on the quality, not
• 22:08the quantity.
• 22:10As an example, we
• 22:12usually have
• 22:14trainees who apply as residents
• 22:17with somewhere between seventy five
• 22:18and one hundred publications
• 22:20before they even start their
• 22:21residency.
• 22:23And they feel like that's
• 22:25a necessary clip they have
• 22:26to continue on throughout their
• 22:29training and their early faculty
• 22:30years.
• 22:32But in fact, we try
• 22:33to,
• 22:33tell them to do the
• 22:34opposite.
• 22:35Really focus on their science.
• 22:38Make sure you can tell
• 22:39a cogent story that then
• 22:40will will be,
• 22:42persuasive
• 22:42to people, who are evaluating
• 22:44you on the outside and
• 22:46on the inside going forward.
• 22:49The other thing we've realized
• 22:50is is in the department,
• 22:51we we need to have
• 22:53flexibility for different folks.
• 22:55There are
• 22:56lots of life events that
• 22:57happen.
• 22:59We have very few on
• 23:00the tenure track in our
• 23:01department. We have some on
• 23:02the CS track. But as
• 23:04Jonathan said, the majority of
• 23:06ours, as for the school
• 23:07of medicine, are CES.
• 23:09The interesting are our funding
• 23:11portfolio in the department has
• 23:13more funding coming from CES
• 23:15than is actually coming from
• 23:16CS,
• 23:17but that's largely due to
• 23:18the numbers.
• 23:20But, again, we we try
• 23:22to focus on the individual
• 23:23and try to make sure
• 23:24that we support them in
• 23:25any way we can. And
• 23:26sometimes that means
• 23:28working more closely with the
• 23:29division chief who is
• 23:31more or sometimes less,
• 23:33focused on,
• 23:35the CS track folks.
• 23:36Sometimes that's on mentors who,
• 23:39you know, maybe National Academy,
• 23:41but maybe not paying his
• 23:42attention quite as much.
• 23:44And we wanna make sure
• 23:45people don't get lost.
• 23:47So I think I'll just
• 23:48pause there, and let it
• 23:50let it move on. And
• 23:51if people have additional questions
• 23:52about,
• 23:54some of the issues that
• 23:55procedural,
• 23:56scientists have, I'm happy to
• 23:57talk about them.
• 23:59Excellent. Thanks so much for
• 24:00that perspective. And it's nice
• 24:01to hear about some of
• 24:02these, maybe nuances isn't the
• 24:04best word, but the situation
• 24:05specific things and the flexibility
• 24:07that's built in as well.
• 24:08So definitely appreciate that and
• 24:09wish you the best in
• 24:10your letter writing this weekend.
• 24:14Ifat, can we go to
• 24:15you next?
• 24:16Sure. Thank you.
• 24:18I'm a professor of comparative
• 24:20medicine,
• 24:21with secondary appointments in neuroscience
• 24:23and psychology.
• 24:25The others have covered,
• 24:28really nicely most of what
• 24:29I would say.
• 24:31I guess the main difference
• 24:32between,
• 24:33me and the other speakers,
• 24:35I'm a basic scientist.
• 24:37Comparative medicine is a basic
• 24:38science department that has both
• 24:40basic scientists and
• 24:43clinicians, veterinarians in the department.
• 24:45So we have,
• 24:46people in the various tracks
• 24:48in our department.
• 24:50For, those of you who
• 24:51are basic scientists, the choice
• 24:53is between,
• 24:54tenure track, traditional tenure track,
• 24:57or the investigator track. So,
• 24:59there are pros and cons,
• 25:01for each of those, and,
• 25:04each of you will have
• 25:05to choose the one track
• 25:06that is best for you.
• 25:07I'm happy to talk more
• 25:08about that.
• 25:10What I can maybe add
• 25:11a little bit to what
• 25:12has been said already,
• 25:14just to reiterate,
• 25:17the point of publications
• 25:19that,
• 25:20it's not the number, it's
• 25:21the quality.
• 25:22And also to add that
• 25:24the quality is not hundred
• 25:26percent correlated with impact factor.
• 25:29And I think it used
• 25:30to be,
• 25:31all about the impact factor,
• 25:32and it's still, of course,
• 25:33if you have ten
• 25:35nature science cell papers,
• 25:37you'll probably be okay. But
• 25:39you can be okay even
• 25:41if your papers are not
• 25:42in this,
• 25:44you know, top journals
• 25:46if they're good papers. So
• 25:47it's about the content, really.
• 25:49And your department is probably
• 25:51at the best position
• 25:52to evaluate the quality,
• 25:54and so this is the
• 25:55most important thing. And then
• 25:56the other part is the
• 25:57letter writers.
• 25:59And so this is why
• 26:00the letters, are so important
• 26:02for you to get people
• 26:04that really know your work
• 26:05and can say more than
• 26:07just, yes, this person,
• 26:09published in rate in Nature,
• 26:11but rather
• 26:12what their research was and
• 26:13why it is so important.
• 26:17Another thing is that,
• 26:19I think,
• 26:20papers and grants
• 26:22will always be the most
• 26:24important thing, but there are
• 26:25other things that
• 26:27are now taken seriously. I
• 26:29was happy to see that
• 26:30both in my department and
• 26:32on the,
• 26:33tenure and, appointment committee,
• 26:36where
• 26:37teaching,
• 26:38mentoring,
• 26:39service,
• 26:41both in the university and
• 26:42outside of the university
• 26:44are very important and are
• 26:46considered.
• 26:48It doesn't mean that you
• 26:49have to say yes to
• 26:50everything that,
• 26:51you offer. That's also important
• 26:53to know to say no
• 26:54and to not overwork yourself,
• 26:57but these these things do
• 26:58matter.
• 27:00Yeah, I think I can
• 27:01stop here.
• 27:04Excellent. Thank you for that,
• 27:06Yifan, for adding that additional
• 27:07layer with the publications as
• 27:08well. Just one comment to
• 27:10make that kind of ties
• 27:11in with all three what
• 27:12we've heard from all three
• 27:13and from Jonathan as well
• 27:14is just do that importance
• 27:15of the story that you
• 27:17tell, but that also ties
• 27:18into the communication as well.
• 27:19So how you're actually
• 27:21communicating that story to those
• 27:22in your department. I think
• 27:23all the vice chairs could
• 27:24vouch for that. But also
• 27:25how you're communicating that when
• 27:27you're at conferences and other
• 27:28places too. So those letter
• 27:29writers will also have that
• 27:30feel.
• 27:31So many many important topics
• 27:33that you all have brought
• 27:34up. So I do want
• 27:35to open it up for
• 27:36questions if people have them
• 27:37in the chat or want
• 27:38to raise their hand.
• 27:40And while people are thinking
• 27:41one thing,
• 27:42I didn't wanna loop back
• 27:43to Lauren. It's something that
• 27:44you alluded to when you
• 27:46were going through this process
• 27:47just in terms of conversations
• 27:49about track and also conversations
• 27:51I've had with several people
• 27:52in my faculty support role.
• 27:54Sometimes the
• 27:56confusion or lack of clarity
• 27:57of the question that comes
• 27:58up is, am I in
• 27:59the right track
• 28:01as one? And then second,
• 28:02if I feel like I'm
• 28:03not, should I try and
• 28:05pivot? Is there a way
• 28:06to pivot, and how will
• 28:07that impact
• 28:08the actual promotion process? So
• 28:09I just wanted to throw
• 28:10that out there. If any
• 28:11four of you want to
• 28:12jump in,
• 28:13and tackle that one, that'd
• 28:14be great.
• 28:16Jonathan, looks like you might
• 28:17have a thought.
• 28:19Yeah. We can just give
• 28:20some general information. So first
• 28:21of all, tracks tracks can
• 28:22change.
• 28:24You certainly can pivot between
• 28:26the two, between the three
• 28:27of us, between any of
• 28:28them.
• 28:30Obviously, within the confines
• 28:32of the kind of clock
• 28:34for the more research intensive
• 28:35ones.
• 28:36And the the biggest part
• 28:38of the of the kind
• 28:39of thinking about it is
• 28:40what best aligns with it.
• 28:41It's it's an interesting area.
• 28:43We spend a lot of
• 28:44time in my world talking
• 28:46about the track,
• 28:47talking about how to best
• 28:48do this, and yet it's
• 28:49something that the external world
• 28:51doesn't really see. So to
• 28:52some extent, you could say,
• 28:53why do they spend so
• 28:54much time doing that? Well,
• 28:55it has a lot to
• 28:56do with with faculty's identity
• 28:59and to some extent how
• 29:00they are supported. Now there's
• 29:01a lot of overlap between
• 29:03the two, but but between
• 29:04the three of them, for
• 29:05the more research intensive ones.
• 29:06But
• 29:07but,
• 29:08essentially, it helps in terms
• 29:10of giving that background. So
• 29:12a little bit more of
• 29:12the team science in terms
• 29:15of investigator track,
• 29:17a little bit more of
• 29:18kind of a steeper trajectory
• 29:20in terms of the years
• 29:21for the traditional track compared
• 29:23to CS track,
• 29:25but all things that
• 29:26kind of, you know, certainly
• 29:28can be discussions with the
• 29:29departments.
• 29:31Excellent. Lauren? Jonathan, I was
• 29:33wondering if you could give,
• 29:36maybe your
• 29:37thoughts on
• 29:39how common is it across
• 29:41the different departments to have
• 29:43people who are doing
• 29:45most of their time, more
• 29:46than fifty percent of their
• 29:47time is research to be
• 29:48on CES as well?
• 29:50Because I know that,
• 29:53that has been a a
• 29:54trend that I've seen more
• 29:55and more.
• 29:56And so I just wondered
• 29:57whether you could comment on
• 29:58that overall,
• 30:00because we
• 30:01I think, you know, we
• 30:03see and I know of
• 30:04quite a number of faculty
• 30:05who are you know, have
• 30:07k awards that are on
• 30:08CES.
• 30:09Sure.
• 30:10So
• 30:11I would say it's a
• 30:12it
• 30:13there is some variability. There
• 30:14certainly are plenty of examples
• 30:16of that.
• 30:17And it has to do
• 30:18with a combination of where
• 30:19things are at the moment
• 30:21and where a faculty's
• 30:23desires and likely trajectory are
• 30:25gonna be.
• 30:26Remember, I've had some people
• 30:27come to me kinda talking
• 30:28and saying, well, I should
• 30:30be on CES. I just
• 30:31got an r o one,
• 30:32which is fantastic, and they
• 30:33deserve great accolades for that.
• 30:36But that might not be
• 30:38where they like, that might
• 30:39be, like, the thing that
• 30:40they
• 30:41really kind of work to
• 30:43as an objective, had a
• 30:44specific topic, but it's not
• 30:46necessarily gonna be the long
• 30:47term trajectory. I will say
• 30:49most people getting that degree
• 30:50of federal support are gonna
• 30:52be on the more research
• 30:53intensive tracks, but there are
• 30:54gonna be some on CES
• 30:55where, yes, they got that,
• 30:57but that might not be
• 30:59the long term in terms
• 31:00of their support might cross
• 31:01over the fifty percent line,
• 31:03but that might not be
• 31:04where they're really thinking that
• 31:05they're gonna continue the emphasis
• 31:07and is gonna be the
• 31:08long term trajectory. So I
• 31:09think it's the combination of
• 31:11the present
• 31:12and where somebody is thinking
• 31:13that they are really gonna
• 31:15have most of their time
• 31:17in kind of future years
• 31:18coming.
• 31:20Excellent.
• 31:22Go ahead, Pierre. Yeah.
• 31:23So,
• 31:24we we,
• 31:26we address this all the
• 31:27time in the department of
• 31:28surgery, as I'm sure Jonathan
• 31:29knows.
• 31:31The the one thing we
• 31:32try to stay away from
• 31:34is the identification is CES
• 31:36as a bailout for
• 31:38CS at the end game.
• 31:39Right. We try to make
• 31:40sure we identify people
• 31:42in their trajectory
• 31:44early on. So if we
• 31:45have
• 31:46somebody early on who may
• 31:48be doing well in the
• 31:48laboratory and is motivated
• 31:51by it, but
• 31:52you know, is doing fifteen
• 31:54thousand RBUs.
• 31:55We have a pretty good
• 31:56idea of where that's gonna
• 31:58end up in the long
• 31:59term. And
• 32:00with
• 32:01with perfect transparency,
• 32:03funds flow and our and,
• 32:05in our department has changed
• 32:06things a bit where,
• 32:08you know, it's actually been
• 32:09quite successful in generating more
• 32:11RBUs,
• 32:12and that has motivated some
• 32:14people to focus more on
• 32:15the clinical side.
• 32:17But it's also
• 32:19identified those that are truly
• 32:20passionate about the CS track
• 32:22or science,
• 32:23and we try to support
• 32:24them as best we can.
• 32:26Having said that, you know,
• 32:27with our funding portfolio as
• 32:28it is, there are plenty
• 32:29of CES folks who are
• 32:31spending at least fifty percent
• 32:32of their time,
• 32:34with the support of their
• 32:35division chiefs and the department
• 32:36chair who are doing great
• 32:38work and are well funded.
• 32:42Awesome. Helpful as well. Do
• 32:44you follow, Lauren, anything you
• 32:45want to add on that?
• 32:47I'm less familiar with the
• 32:50with these tracks. So, yeah,
• 32:52it's very helpful for me
• 32:53also to know this for
• 32:54our clinicians in our in
• 32:55our department.
• 32:59Yeah. And I'll just maybe
• 33:01add that, you know, when
• 33:02you come off your k
• 33:03and I don't wanna
• 33:05scare anyone, but, like, you
• 33:06know, you have your k
• 33:07and you have seventy five
• 33:08percent salary support or or
• 33:10fifty percent in a procedural
• 33:11specialty.
• 33:14Most people can't get that
• 33:16level of salary support on
• 33:17one r o one.
• 33:19And so
• 33:21it often is a time
• 33:23when you're thinking long term
• 33:24about supporting your salary more
• 33:26than half your time, you're
• 33:27not really talking about one
• 33:29r o one. You're talking
• 33:30about, you know, a couple
• 33:31of r o ones or
• 33:32a mixture of
• 33:33r o one foundation grants,
• 33:35other federal funding,
• 33:37contributions and time on other
• 33:38people's grants so that you
• 33:40can mix and match that
• 33:42puzzle to continue your,
• 33:44you know, research time Mhmm.
• 33:46Or decades.
• 33:47And so I think that,
• 33:49starting to think about that
• 33:51while you're in the middle
• 33:52of your k and really
• 33:53mapping out what is that
• 33:54transition gonna look like, and
• 33:56can I start to collaborate
• 33:57with some people and start
• 33:58grabbing,
• 33:59you know, contributing ten percent
• 34:00here and five percent there
• 34:02so that
• 34:03coming off the k is
• 34:05smoother,
• 34:06as you're writing your r
• 34:07o ones and getting funded,
• 34:09will help
• 34:10solidify the long term plan,
• 34:11help make the promotion process
• 34:13since we're talking about promotions
• 34:14today? Promotions, you know, smoother,
• 34:16but also
• 34:17alleviate some of your stress
• 34:18of of that transition time
• 34:20that you're often
• 34:22making that transition to independent
• 34:23funding at the same time
• 34:25that you're working on promotions.
• 34:26And so it is
• 34:28a a stressful time in
• 34:29your career.
• 34:30And like everything, planning helps
• 34:32a lot. Yeah.
• 34:34Very well said. Important points
• 34:36as well.
• 34:37I was just gonna make
• 34:38a comment to to Peter's
• 34:39point about the the clinical
• 34:41pressures in the world we're
• 34:42living in,
• 34:44that, as I mentioned, the
• 34:45AC and CS tracks are
• 34:47are by far the largest.
• 34:48And even to put that
• 34:49in context, if you take
• 34:50into account not just New
• 34:52Haven, but the other delivery
• 34:53networks with that, and you
• 34:55think about hires as well
• 34:56as some people transitioning
• 34:58from CES
• 34:59to AC with kind of
• 35:01the increased clinical and educational
• 35:02focus,
• 35:04CES has by far been
• 35:05the biggest track, but the
• 35:07AC track is actually growing
• 35:09in kinda trajectory. And probably
• 35:12in a few years,
• 35:13those lines are gonna cross.
• 35:15And, you know, we are
• 35:16on a trajectory where that
• 35:17will become the biggest track.
• 35:18And we're not focusing on
• 35:19that, but I just wanna
• 35:20put it in perspective in
• 35:21terms of the distribution tracks.
• 35:23Definitely helpful.
• 35:27Questions that folks have that
• 35:28you wanna
• 35:29state out loud or put
• 35:30in the chat or even
• 35:31send to me?
• 35:37Maybe I could say something
• 35:38a little provocative.
• 35:39Okay.
• 35:44We've actually had,
• 35:45as much success with some
• 35:47of our junior faculty,
• 35:50going a route of an
• 35:51R01,
• 35:53first off, rather than doing
• 35:55the K route.
• 35:57And again, depending on the
• 35:59level of training and the
• 36:00trajectory and the momentum that
• 36:02any individual has,
• 36:05We don't really have a
• 36:06single path.
• 36:07I don't know if this
• 36:08works well in other departments
• 36:10as well.
• 36:11But just a point to
• 36:13say that flexibility
• 36:15is,
• 36:16I think, key, and there
• 36:18is no one correct path
• 36:19for every person.
• 36:23It's a great point.
• 36:32No questions? Yeah.
• 36:37The sign where to make
• 36:38a joke that that means
• 36:38everybody is fully confident
• 36:40in sailing along
• 36:43with no inquiries or that
• 36:44our panelists have been so
• 36:45thorough that they've covered everything
• 36:46you'd want to know.
• 36:51I will throw in one
• 36:51more thing while people are
• 36:52talking. I think it was
• 36:53Lauren, maybe others who also
• 36:54alluded to aspects of letter
• 36:57writing from people who are
• 36:58in the field.
• 37:00I think a piece that
• 37:01comes up there sometimes is
• 37:02either spoken or unspoken is
• 37:04how to go about
• 37:06developing that network, so to
• 37:07speak. And, Laura, I know
• 37:08you talked about that a
• 37:09little bit, but I was
• 37:09curious if you others
• 37:11would wanna talk about that
• 37:12at more in line too.
• 37:13And and how do you
• 37:14decide who to select? Is
• 37:16that something that people are
• 37:17doing on their own, doing
• 37:18that in collaboration with faculty
• 37:19affairs, with vice chairs? What
• 37:21was that process actually look
• 37:22like?
• 37:34Happy to make any comments
• 37:35or I can leave it
• 37:35to the others.
• 37:38Looks like you're first on
• 37:39deck, Jonathan.
• 37:40Alright.
• 37:42So letters are really important.
• 37:44Lauren well touched on the
• 37:46fact of, you know, different
• 37:47types of letters. And so
• 37:48really
• 37:49two to two different types.
• 37:51Right? Non arm's length for
• 37:52people who know you,
• 37:54and arm's length
• 37:55are
• 37:57are people who don't know
• 37:58you directly. Right? They're an
• 38:00arm's length. They're really looking
• 38:01at it. And, occasionally, we
• 38:02get responses from people we
• 38:03ask to do arm's length
• 38:04who just don't get it.
• 38:05And they say, how can
• 38:06I write this letter? I
• 38:07don't know that person well.
• 38:09I can still remember when
• 38:10I was starting the whole
• 38:12journey as an assistant professor,
• 38:14and I met with my
• 38:15mentor and chair of the
• 38:16time. And I said, try
• 38:18to think of people, you
• 38:18know, we asked me if
• 38:19I'm gonna indicate some that
• 38:20were arm's length. And I
• 38:21said, well, I don't know
• 38:22that person well. He's like,
• 38:23you just don't get it.
• 38:25If you knew them well,
• 38:27they're not gonna be part
• 38:28of this conversation for the
• 38:29arm's length. Like you have
• 38:30to be thinking, not be
• 38:30thinking in that terms, but
• 38:32people in your field who
• 38:33know
• 38:34know of you. So, you
• 38:35know, the whole concept there
• 38:36is that they do understand
• 38:38the field. They're getting some
• 38:39letters by people who understand
• 38:41the field and can comment
• 38:42on, look at your portfolio
• 38:44of work or have crossed
• 38:46paths with you in some
• 38:47society or
• 38:49other scholarly way and really
• 38:51are in a good vantage
• 38:52to comment on that.
• 38:54And that's really, you know,
• 38:56a way to get the
• 38:57best sense of the field.
• 38:58And and in in some
• 39:01non med school,
• 39:03capacities, that's all they really
• 39:04think of because I think
• 39:05that's how you have to
• 39:06know the field. But there
• 39:07is a strong sense that
• 39:09those aren't the people who
• 39:10can really say what it
• 39:11is like to work with
• 39:12you, and how are you
• 39:14to engage? How do you
• 39:16work with your colleagues? How
• 39:17do you care for your
• 39:18patients? How do you do
• 39:19your education? Like, there there's
• 39:20a lot to be said
• 39:21for knowing somebody well. And
• 39:23so the nonarm's length are
• 39:24actually really important as well
• 39:26to complement that. And so
• 39:28it's which really the two
• 39:29together that we think of,
• 39:30there are different numbers required
• 39:32for each track. Some of
• 39:34them required to be arm's
• 39:35length, some nonarm's length, some
• 39:37that the faculty member will
• 39:39recommend, some that the department
• 39:40will recommend, depending on what
• 39:42the department is. Sometimes even
• 39:44the department ones end up
• 39:45being a conversation with the
• 39:46candidate to say, who do
• 39:48you think we should put?
• 39:49But it's often a conversation,
• 39:50but there are some that
• 39:51directly come from candidate and
• 39:53some that come from department.
• 39:54So it's both who's recommending
• 39:56them and the type of
• 39:57letter they are.
• 39:59Yeah. Definitely helpful.
• 40:02Anything other I was I
• 40:03just wanna add? Go ahead,
• 40:04Lauren. I would add to,
• 40:05you know, spend some time
• 40:07talking to your mentors
• 40:08about
• 40:09who to you know, when
• 40:10you
• 40:11start thinking about that putting
• 40:12together that list because your
• 40:13mentors also know
• 40:16who are the people in
• 40:16the field.
• 40:18And
• 40:20and sometimes
• 40:21it's, you know, also
• 40:24there may be some inside
• 40:25information of like, oh, that
• 40:26person is swamped right now.
• 40:28You know, don't use them.
• 40:29They're never gonna get to
• 40:30it. So, you know, pick
• 40:32a couple of other people
• 40:33or, you know, whatever.
• 40:35But sometimes you're, you know,
• 40:39because your mentors have been
• 40:40through this before, they know
• 40:41who are generally
• 40:44take the time, really provide
• 40:46good analyses of of
• 40:48of, you know, junior faculty
• 40:50who write really superficial, you
• 40:52know, not great letters.
• 40:54So it's worth our conversation
• 40:56because your mentors have been
• 40:57through this both themselves, but
• 40:59also with, you know, many
• 41:00other faculty.
• 41:02Yeah. Well said.
• 41:04Yeah. I think the inside
• 41:05information is really important. So
• 41:07if,
• 41:08your mentors or others that
• 41:09you can consult with, know
• 41:11that someone is a particularly
• 41:13bad letter writer or the
• 41:15other way around. That's important
• 41:17to know.
• 41:18And, also, there is kind
• 41:19of a delicate
• 41:21point, of, like, you want
• 41:23people
• 41:24that know your work well,
• 41:27but that did not collaborate
• 41:29with you in any way.
• 41:31So sometimes it's important to
• 41:33keep some of these people.
• 41:34Like, if you wanna if
• 41:35if you know that someone
• 41:36thinks really highly of you
• 41:38and you maybe wanna collaborate
• 41:40with them,
• 41:41think I mean, I'm not
• 41:42saying not don't collaborate, but
• 41:44think for a minute, do
• 41:45I want to collaborate with
• 41:46them now, or do I
• 41:47wanna keep them for a
• 41:49letter writer and then collaborate
• 41:50with them afterwards?
• 41:53Yeah. It's an important point.
• 41:55Peter, do you wanna add
• 41:55anything?
• 41:56Yeah. I was just gonna
• 41:57say this is where
• 42:00your,
• 42:01national profile in terms of
• 42:03presentation
• 42:04really helps. Mhmm.
• 42:05And, you know, the smaller
• 42:07meetings, the Keystone, the Gordon
• 42:09Conference, places like that where
• 42:11you can
• 42:12put up your poster, give
• 42:13a small talk,
• 42:14be able to meet people
• 42:15in a casual setting,
• 42:18really helps because you remember
• 42:20those people. You remember the
• 42:21people who you've spoken to
• 42:22and have done good work
• 42:23or have enticing things. And,
• 42:27it it's it's certainly been
• 42:29very helpful to me and
• 42:30others in the past, so
• 42:31I would consider these smaller,
• 42:33meetings as well.
• 42:35Yeah. That's a great point.
• 42:36One one just thought about
• 42:37the letter writers that came
• 42:38up as people were saying
• 42:39this. It does not need
• 42:40to be
• 42:42the biggest person in the
• 42:43field. Mhmm. So we recently
• 42:45had an example. And and
• 42:46if letters if there's a
• 42:47nonresponse
• 42:47rate or people decline and
• 42:49kinda say they're busy, that's
• 42:50not held against anybody. Like,
• 42:52you know, I don't want
• 42:52you to think that in
• 42:53a negative way. But we
• 42:54had a a recent example
• 42:56where someone's going from assistant
• 42:57to associate and really clearly
• 42:59wanted to pick, like, the
• 43:00big people in the field.
• 43:01But, like, that's gonna make
• 43:02the biggest difference, and they
• 43:03picked the professor chairs in
• 43:05these different institutions, and the
• 43:06response rate wasn't as good.
• 43:08You know? It doesn't need
• 43:09to be that. Like, it
• 43:11needs to be somebody of
• 43:12the rank you're applying to
• 43:13for or above, but it
• 43:14doesn't need to be
• 43:15the person just because you
• 43:17think that they are, like,
• 43:18the seminal person in the
• 43:19field. That doesn't is not
• 43:21needed.
• 43:24Great point as
• 43:30well. So I'll I'll throw
• 43:31in another one on behalf
• 43:32of the group.
• 43:33So and I think this
• 43:34is one that people people
• 43:35are often thinking about, but
• 43:36maybe isn't always voiced out
• 43:38loud. So one of you
• 43:39had mentioned, I think it
• 43:40was Peter, about flexibility.
• 43:41And so sometimes I think
• 43:43there is
• 43:44this angst of, oh, I'm
• 43:46doing important work, whether it's
• 43:47locally, clinically, research,
• 43:49nationally, but it doesn't look
• 43:51like the standard mold
• 43:52and not always knowing how
• 43:54to engage in that conversation.
• 43:56And whatever we we might,
• 43:57you know, frame. Jonathan, you've
• 43:59given a really good overview
• 44:00of what what some of
• 44:00the metrics are, but maybe
• 44:02this isn't a well formulated
• 44:03question, but how how should
• 44:05people try and address those
• 44:06situations
• 44:07where their their portfolio may
• 44:09look different than what typically
• 44:10comes through, but still they
• 44:12feel it's valuable and they
• 44:13also feel like others in
• 44:14the field see it as
• 44:15valuable?
• 44:19Jonathan, you wanna start? Sure.
• 44:21I don't know. I don't
• 44:22wanna
• 44:24just jump in. But,
• 44:25I'd say there's there's no
• 44:27norm,
• 44:28you know, that
• 44:29really there is great appreciation
• 44:32for
• 44:33people having a niche, having
• 44:34an area in which they're
• 44:35making a difference.
• 44:37There's a lot of respect
• 44:38to, you know, instead of
• 44:39being kinda scattered to really
• 44:40have some niche and area
• 44:43in which somebody develops themselves,
• 44:45and that can take a
• 44:46lot of different forms.
• 44:48And that's where I think
• 44:49the CV too and kind
• 44:50of writing about yourself if
• 44:51it's not fitting what you
• 44:53think of as more typical
• 44:55is really a good way
• 44:56to to kinda just explain
• 44:57yourself and say, this is
• 44:59why this is important to
• 45:00me. This is how I've
• 45:01pulled together things that are
• 45:03unique or
• 45:04distinct for my path and
• 45:06career.
• 45:08And,
• 45:09you know, I sit on
• 45:09a lot of these committees.
• 45:10I still I've learned a
• 45:12lot about different
• 45:13random pieces of science I
• 45:15would never think I would
• 45:16learn about. I've understood connections
• 45:18in different ways. I still
• 45:20think of those as great
• 45:21examples. I mean, it's it's
• 45:22a great window into what
• 45:24people are doing, and,
• 45:26we people really do listen
• 45:27to the stories.
• 45:29Yeah. That's great. I mean,
• 45:30to make the answer the
• 45:31question even a little bit
• 45:32more pointed for the vice
• 45:33chairs to ask, how do
• 45:35you in your positions
• 45:37navigate with that when that
• 45:38someone in your portfolio? What
• 45:40have you done in the
• 45:40past?
• 45:43Well, I can start briefly.
• 45:45Since we have so many
• 45:47different types of people in
• 45:48the,
• 45:50department of surgery,
• 45:53many whom are CES but
• 45:54also CS,
• 45:56We just emphasize that the
• 45:57work needs to be of
• 45:59high quality and peer reviewed,
• 46:02and,
• 46:04a podcast and a web
• 46:05page is not gonna do
• 46:06it.
• 46:08I will tell you we've
• 46:09seen all sorts of things
• 46:10come through,
• 46:11and those things can be
• 46:12helpful.
• 46:13But I would I would
• 46:14say our our continued emphasis
• 46:16on high quality science, not
• 46:19volume,
• 46:20and
• 46:21recognized by
• 46:23high quality peer review is
• 46:24is the necessity.
• 46:28Well said. Very concrete as
• 46:30well. Go ahead, Lauren.
• 46:31Yeah. I think maybe I
• 46:32just wanna echo that
• 46:37even when someone's doing something
• 46:39that is
• 46:40incredibly
• 46:41impactful
• 46:42but may not be a
• 46:44more traditional
• 46:46body of scholarship,
• 46:48there sometimes can be ways,
• 46:49and I've been thinking about
• 46:51this more and more of,
• 46:52like, well, can can you
• 46:53write about it? You know,
• 46:54if you worked on a
• 46:55committee to do something really
• 46:57novel,
• 46:58is there a way that
• 46:59you can
• 47:01publish that in addition to
• 47:02the body of work that,
• 47:03you know, was the output
• 47:04of of whatever committee it
• 47:06was? Or is there a
• 47:07way where you could quantify
• 47:08the impact? Like, do a
• 47:09research study on
• 47:11what was the impact or
• 47:12what are the perspectives of
• 47:14this. And just try to
• 47:15think about,
• 47:17when it is nontraditional
• 47:19work that you're doing, is
• 47:21there a way that you
• 47:22can get something that's sort
• 47:23of in the traditional category
• 47:24as well
• 47:25that,
• 47:27is somehow
• 47:29peer reviewed and and related?
• 47:30So you're getting sort of
• 47:31an additional bang for your
• 47:33buck
• 47:34when you're junior and you're
• 47:35still kinda building this, you
• 47:37know,
• 47:38dossier of of what you've
• 47:40contributed.
• 47:41Yeah. That's an excellent point.
• 47:44I I've talked to to
• 47:45Lauren
• 47:46multiple
• 47:47times where this really comes
• 47:48up sometimes of looking for
• 47:50how this applies is educational
• 47:52scholarship.
• 47:53You know, it you know,
• 47:54having peer reviewed syllabus is
• 47:56but having some measure of
• 47:58uptake. Right? You know, we're
• 48:00we're used to seeing
• 48:02a publication is cited or
• 48:03something has some impact, but
• 48:05we're not as used to
• 48:06looking at it in other
• 48:07areas in general.
• 48:09I can think of examples
• 48:10of people who wrote a
• 48:12educational aid and kinda talked
• 48:13about, you know, the fact
• 48:15that every
• 48:16fellow across the country was,
• 48:17you know, having a you
• 48:18know, by some they had
• 48:19some metric. You know, some
• 48:20vast majority were using this
• 48:22as their reference guide, and
• 48:23it had been vetted, peer
• 48:25reviewed, and then some measure
• 48:26of uptake. Again, these
• 48:28less traditional things, but thinking
• 48:30about that peer review
• 48:32and some degree of uptake
• 48:34impact and effect.
• 48:37Yeah. That's helpful. Go ahead
• 48:39go ahead, Yvonne.
• 48:40Yeah. No. I think,
• 48:42there is more acceptance now
• 48:44of things like that.
• 48:45So that's very encouraging.
• 48:48And like what Peter said,
• 48:49our department, comparative medicine, even
• 48:51though it's a small department,
• 48:52it's very heterogeneous and diverse
• 48:55in terms of, research,
• 48:57directions and, you know, the
• 48:58kind of work that people
• 48:59do.
• 49:00And so
• 49:01we are trying for each
• 49:03person to find what are
• 49:04the things, what are the
• 49:05strength for them specifically
• 49:08in their,
• 49:09specific,
• 49:11you know, field or subfield.
• 49:12Sometimes there are people in
• 49:13my department that do things
• 49:15that I
• 49:16know very little about. And
• 49:17so I need to,
• 49:20understand what they're doing
• 49:21in a way that then
• 49:22will kind of make sure
• 49:23that the tenure committee of
• 49:25the university will understand what
• 49:26they're doing and why it's
• 49:27important.
• 49:31Excellent.
• 49:33One theme I'm also seeing
• 49:34with everything that you all
• 49:34just shared with that question
• 49:35too is, again, just the
• 49:37ongoing
• 49:37communication
• 49:38as well between mentors, between
• 49:41you all and your vice
• 49:42chair roles and things like
• 49:43that. And I'm also hearing
• 49:44that you all are open
• 49:45to learning about other things
• 49:47as well. Maybe a
• 49:49third layer I'll add, which
• 49:50I've seen as well is
• 49:51in some of those conversations,
• 49:52sometimes the chair or vice
• 49:53chair or mentor
• 49:55may be listening to that
• 49:55and may actually have connections
• 49:57in other places that can
• 49:58actually help whatever that nontraditional
• 50:00thing is actually become even
• 50:01more facilitator having metrics. So,
• 50:03again, I think it just
• 50:04speaks to that. The, oh,
• 50:05the importance of this ongoing
• 50:07conversation. I know one of
• 50:08you already alluded to not
• 50:09having that conversation
• 50:11six months before promotion, but
• 50:12throughout.
• 50:13So
• 50:16And I'd again encourage people
• 50:17to have,
• 50:19multiple mentors
• 50:20Mhmm. Multiple sponsors so you
• 50:22can get these different perspectives.
• 50:26Although a strong mentor can
• 50:27be helpful,
• 50:28you're only getting one perspective.
• 50:31And I think it's really
• 50:32important to make sure you
• 50:33get multiple ones that you're
• 50:35on the right path.
• 50:37Great point.
• 50:44Questions? You all have lots
• 50:45lots of time to chew
• 50:46chew on these things. So
• 50:51anybody wanting to throw
• 50:53throw something in?
• 51:00And they'll ask a different
• 51:01question, which I guess could
• 51:02be dangerous. Anything that has
• 51:04been helpful so far that
• 51:05you all have heard.
• 51:06And I say dangerous because
• 51:07if no one says anything,
• 51:08that could be could be
• 51:10I imagine that's not the
• 51:11case. But
• 51:26So comment about really helpful
• 51:27to hear advice about the
• 51:28written letters
• 51:29the letter writers. Excellent.
• 51:37So I'll leave for people
• 51:38to throw some of those
• 51:38things in the chat too.
• 51:39But I know we have
• 51:40a little bit over five
• 51:41minutes left,
• 51:42maybe for all four of
• 51:43you and you've started this
• 51:44already, but would you be
• 51:45willing to share something you
• 51:46wish you knew as an
• 51:47assistant professor
• 51:49that you know, now
• 51:50to share with your, I
• 51:51shouldn't say younger self earlier
• 51:53career self,
• 51:56Jonathan, not to pick on
• 51:57you, but can we go
• 51:57with you just to go
• 51:58in order?
• 52:01Sure. The, the, the thing
• 52:02I really harp on my
• 52:03junior faculty for, because of
• 52:06kind of what I see
• 52:07is, is really just the
• 52:08getting involved early on things.
• 52:10And and societies are the
• 52:11biggest of things. I think
• 52:12we're all more programmed for
• 52:14the scholarship we do, for
• 52:15the education that's local.
• 52:17But the committee stuff takes
• 52:19takes a long time, and
• 52:20and I'd say
• 52:21it can be really gratifying.
• 52:23It's a it's a world
• 52:23I never thought I would
• 52:24get into and
• 52:26drifted into it over the
• 52:27years and have really enjoyed
• 52:29it, but it but it
• 52:29takes a a while to
• 52:30get connected. Most of the
• 52:31societies, at least in my
• 52:33field,
• 52:34are pleading for people to
• 52:35get involved. They're looking for
• 52:37people to do things, and
• 52:39everybody is a little hesitant.
• 52:40I mean, we literally get
• 52:41solicitations in my field saying,
• 52:42who will join a committee?
• 52:43Who will do something? Like,
• 52:45they want help.
• 52:46I really encourage people get
• 52:47involved early. It can be
• 52:49really rewarding. It's not particularly
• 52:50time consuming for many of
• 52:51them. I'm not saying some
• 52:52of them are, but many
• 52:53of them are not particularly
• 52:54time consuming. And it's a
• 52:56great way to get involved.
• 52:57And in terms of promotion
• 52:58process, just simple way to
• 53:00show that kind of bigger
• 53:01involvement.
• 53:02Mhmm.
• 53:04Excellent.
• 53:05Peter, did you wanna add
• 53:06anything? Yeah. I'll just add
• 53:07one thing. Once you do
• 53:08get involved, you'll be surprised
• 53:10at how many people don't
• 53:11actually do anything
• 53:13on those committees. And and
• 53:14if you actually do something
• 53:16on those committees,
• 53:17you get promoted very quickly
• 53:19through those societies Yeah. Because
• 53:21you've actually done something.
• 53:23I guess the other thing,
• 53:24sort of to keep an
• 53:25eye on in terms of
• 53:26societies is that,
• 53:28things like ASCI,
• 53:30as you move on in
• 53:31your career,
• 53:32I think are incredibly valuable
• 53:34for,
• 53:35additional connections.
• 53:38Okay. Do you wanna spell
• 53:39that for those who may
• 53:39not be familiar?
• 53:42Yeah. So it's the American
• 53:43Society for Clinical Investigation.
• 53:46And I think,
• 53:47it's probably the
• 53:50key society for physician scientists,
• 53:52at least in the United
• 53:53States, in terms of
• 53:55connections.
• 53:57I was fortunate to be
• 53:58a member relatively early in
• 53:59my career.
• 54:01And, you know, with regularity,
• 54:03you are meeting with, you
• 54:05know, the director of the
• 54:06NIH, the director of different,
• 54:08institutes,
• 54:09as well as all the
• 54:10deans and department chairs, etcetera.
• 54:12And
• 54:13it can be a really
• 54:14valuable,
• 54:15set of connections.
• 54:17Yeah. Well said.
• 54:19And you are getting some
• 54:20feedback in the chat as
• 54:21well about things that have
• 54:21been helpful. It's nice to
• 54:23see. Yifaka, go ahead.
• 54:24Yeah. I think maybe the
• 54:25one thing that I regret
• 54:26is not knowing,
• 54:27to seek mentorship.
• 54:29It's been talked about before,
• 54:30and,
• 54:31you all have k words.
• 54:33So by definition, you have
• 54:34some kind of mentors.
• 54:36I didn't have that. But,
• 54:37to actually use the mentors
• 54:39and actually seek advice,
• 54:42we make sure now in
• 54:43our department that,
• 54:44every assistant professor has a
• 54:47mentoring committee, and I think
• 54:48they find it really, really
• 54:49helpful.
• 54:52Great advice.
• 54:54Lauren, anything to share with
• 54:56your early career self?
• 55:01Yeah. I think maybe not
• 55:02being afraid to ask for
• 55:04sponsorship.
• 55:05You know, when you're first
• 55:05getting started and you're like,
• 55:07I don't think I have
• 55:08enough data to present at
• 55:09that meeting or something, but,
• 55:11you know, like, ask
• 55:13your your mentors. Like, do
• 55:15you think I'm ready? And
• 55:16and do you think I
• 55:16can you know? If if
• 55:18so, can you keep your
• 55:19eye out for an opportunity
• 55:20for me to, you know,
• 55:21give a short talk somewhere?
• 55:24Or can you introduce me
• 55:25to this person at that,
• 55:26you know, meeting coming up?
• 55:27Because I would love to
• 55:28get to know them and
• 55:29their science, and I'm, you
• 55:30know, a little intimidated. Mhmm.
• 55:32You know? Like, so you
• 55:33can ask people for help,
• 55:36because we're
• 55:38you know, like to think
• 55:39that we're always looking out
• 55:40for every you know, everyone
• 55:41that we're supposed to be
• 55:43taking care of, but sometimes
• 55:44you're just busy, you know,
• 55:45or distracted, or you've had
• 55:47your own deadline, and and
• 55:48something just really just slipped
• 55:50your mind and you, you
• 55:50know, you wanna kick yourself
• 55:52afterwards. So we do also
• 55:54rely on on our junior,
• 55:56you know, faculty to sort
• 55:58of hang us. Hey. Can
• 56:00you nominate me for this
• 56:01award coming up? Can you
• 56:02introduce me to this person?
• 56:04Can you you know?
• 56:06Just so don't be afraid
• 56:07the bottom line is don't
• 56:08be afraid to ask.
• 56:09Yeah.
• 56:11You're not pay you know,
• 56:13you're not bugging us is,
• 56:14like, the bottom line.
• 56:17Cool said. Peter, I saw
• 56:18you drop that, a c
• 56:20I can't get my words
• 56:21out today. ACSI,
• 56:22link in the chat. So
• 56:23thanks for doing that.
• 56:25Pierano, do you also wanna
• 56:26share something you would share
• 56:27to your early career self?
• 56:36I'm sorry. Yeah. I was
• 56:37looking at my phone. I
• 56:38I knew he was calling
• 56:39here. I apologize. What was
• 56:40the quest
• 56:42so I think you're the
• 56:43just to give you a
• 56:43chance to also talk about
• 56:44things you'd share with your
• 56:45early career self to wrap
• 56:47up.
• 56:49Yeah. No. I was exceptionally
• 56:50lucky in having
• 56:52strong mentors,
• 56:54who also acted as sponsors
• 56:56for me,
• 56:57as well as a clinical
• 56:59mentor who was who allowed
• 57:02me to focus
• 57:04on my science early on.
• 57:06There weren't there weren't these
• 57:07tracks back then.
• 57:09And as a cardiac surgeon,
• 57:10they generally want you in
• 57:11the operating room to fill
• 57:12the ICU.
• 57:14But to find people who
• 57:15really believed
• 57:16and
• 57:18allowed me the time was
• 57:19the key.
• 57:20So finding good mentors,
• 57:22both on the clinical side
• 57:23and on the scientific side,
• 57:26was key.
• 57:28Excellent. Really well said, and
• 57:30we're right on time. So
• 57:31thank you to all of
• 57:32you. Really wanna thank all
• 57:33four of you for being
• 57:34here, for everybody's
• 57:36engagement and listening in and
• 57:37for some of the nice
• 57:37things you all post in
• 57:38the chat as well. Seems
• 57:39like this has been helpful,
• 57:40and, hopefully, you all can
• 57:41chat with other Jane Wade
• 57:42members as well with the
• 57:43recordings that are there. So
• 57:46thanks again to everybody for
• 57:47being here. Bye bye.