Apply for all the things

As we're getting back into job and grantwriting season, maybe I'll make another quick post with some unsolicited advice:

Sometimes, you need to have a little *less* faith in your knowledge of the system.  

What do I mean by this?  I talk to a lot of folks who seem to tell me things like "I'm not qualified for that job", "I won't apply to School X because they don't want someone in my area", "I got no traction from School Y last year, so won't try again this year", etc.  Almost everyone who has said that to me has received some version of "you're wrong".  There's a good chance if you're saying that, you're probably wrong too.  I know not everyone can get all the jobs or win all the awards, but when someone says that to me often they're usually better than they think they are.  I should write a whole post on impostor syndrome, etc but actually what I want to emphasize in this post is that there's just more complexity and unpredictability in the system.  As a result, I think you should apply for all the things that *you* are interested in having; other places can decide for themselves if they don't want what you're selling. 

 Here are a few observations about the system that hopefully convince you to second-guess yourself on second-guessing yourself:

 

 - Hiring priorities can change every year and can be adjusted by the chair, department, or deans.  For example, at NCSU we sometimes have different types of searches; one year might be symplectic geometry and the next year might be anyone in pure math, regardless of whether we found a symplectic geometer the previous year.  Sometimes this is explicit in the ad, and sometimes it's not (e.g. there is a hope/emphasis for one area, but it's not set in stone).  Even in a focused search, some schools will consider certain candidates if the opportunity presents itself.  You may have not been what they were looking for last year, but this year you could be a good fit. 

 

- Hiring meetings can be sort of antagonistic.  If someone wants Candidate A over Candidate B they will point out all kinds of criticisms of Candidate B (Candidate B only collaborates with senior people so they probably didn't do the big contributions) and then next year they will just flip the logic to get Candidate C (Candidate C collaborates with all these senior people so they must be so great in order to work with them!).  There's definitely inconsistency in what people like in grant panels too.  (I've received feedback on a grant that said roughly "Project X is a very valuable idea!" and from another panelist it said "Project X is not valuable".)  

- Some departments take the "convex hull" approach.  They are always looking to hire people in a slightly different area than what's represented to maximize the total amount of mathematics covered.  Some try to build up tightknit groups where there is a lot of overlap.  This is sometimes inconsistent and also varies from person to person in the department.  The philosophy doesn't always reflect what actually happens in hiring.

- Some departments only want to hire the person they think is the #1 person in the world (even if they have no chance of getting them).  Some departments try to play strategies of picking out someone they think will fly under the radar and so it's a good opportunity for them to have a much better chance of getting someone really great.  Some departments care if you have a background that matches with their school (e.g. you have fancy school pedigree or went to a small liberal arts school for college) and some do not. 

- Grant panels / hiring committees often change every year.  At some schools, everyone might be involved in hiring and at some schools, no one except a few people are even allowed to look at the files.  In the latter case, you are especially at the whim of what those few people think is important (which really varies based on who is on the committee).  Some people are on targeted searches in areas they know nothing about, which includes the subject, the good journals, who the big names in the field writing the letters are, etc.  So your file might be under consideration by someone in your field or someone who doesn't care what a manifold is.  Either one might work to your advantage depending on the situation.  (Eg. if someone is too close to you researchwise, then they might have actually have really clear preconceived notions about what kind of mathematician they are looking for.)

 

I have seen a decent amount of hiring / grants / NSF postdocs throughout my career.  I'd say it's quite frequent that the outcome does not go the way I thought, in either direction.  Folks I thought were extremely qualified did not get the thing; sometimes someone got a position when I personally felt I knew of a much better fit.  I've watched NC State say no to candidates who ended up getting jobs in top departments; we've also interviewed people that did not get any traction in previous years; and we've also interviewed people which I can really only describe as clowns.  So, while there's an unpredictability to it, you really don't know what people are after, and sometimes it's you!  (The advantage is there's a lot of opportunities and so hopefully some line up well for you, even if all of them cannot.)  So, again, apply for all the things that *you* want.  You're worth it!