Baby Smurf was born in late June. If I absolutely had my way, I would keep him at home till January, i.e. have him start daycare at 6 months. At 6 months, several significant milestones will have been met, but perhaps most importantly he'll be able to get a flu shot before starting daycare. I have had many bad 1st-year experiences with my older kids; the arrival of every winter fills me with dread and foreshadowing of ear infections to come. However, the daycare only had an opening in October, so I've been paying for childcare (through the nose, btw) since Oct 1.
Then came a notice that there is a grant program review in November. I missed a similar event in the spring because I was hugely pregnant, so I figured I had to go to this one. It's withing driving distance (about 300 miles away), so the plan is to drive in and out on the same day (I love driving, it's no big deal). My husband dreads staying at home with the baby all alone all day; we compromised by having the baby start daycare on November 1st.** I would say this is a pretty major detour from my ideal childcare plan to make my granting agency happy. (As an aside, since Smurf will start daycare in November, I have then planned to submit a proposal in early December and do a whole bunch of other work.)
I asked that my talk at this grant review be scheduled neither too early nor too late in the day, so I'd be able to drive in and out on the same day (the whole meeting lasts two days) on account of a small baby. But, I just received an email from the program manager reprimanding me for just dropping in, because the point of these meetings is for us all to be aware of what the other grantees are doing and to meet other program managers and national lab folks (all of which I am aware of).
My blood pressure went through the roof. I hate it that I have to ask for special accommodation and list personal reasons to do so. I hate it even more that I have to do so in several emails, the last one stating that it's really complicated to be away from a breastfed small baby (I didn't go into details, but all the pumping ahead of time and during the meetings is a major PITA). I hate it that I am the only woman PI (again) at this meeting. I would love it if my reproductive status were never a topic of discussion in my professional life, but it's simply not possible. I cannot not ask for accommodation, and I hate it that I feel quite crappy (humiliated? like a fraud? like I'm stealing something? can't really decide) every time I do ask. And since we are talking about a program manager with whom I'd like to stay on friendly terms, I cannot really speak my mind.
My group has done a hell of a job with the funds we received, we've been doing great in terms of publications, I will show up at the meeting and will have lots of new science to present. So I really think I am fulfilling my duty here. Yet, still feeling like crap and failing to fully understand, let alone articulate, what exactly it is that has ticked me off so about this little incident.
---
** This is not an invitation to bash my husband. We have three kids and being alone with all of them is a challenge. My husband spends a lot of time caring for the older two, even more so since we had the baby, and he does a wonderful job. I understand that he's not comfortable taking care of the baby for a very long time; just wishing he were doesn't make it so. Babies are unpredictable creatures. I can always whip out a boob if all else fails.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Calling Native English Speakers
My dear readers, I have a bit of a grammatical conundrum. A grammandrum, if you will.
We all know the difference between "between" and "among": use "between" when it's, well, a choice between two options, and "among" when you are talking about three or more. For instance:
I cannot choose between tiramisu and cheese cake. (This is a complete lie. I totally go for tiramisu every time.)
Among the deserts available at Fancy Restaurant, the best one is their tiramisu.
However, there's a bit of a caveat, as Grammar Girl taught me some time ago. When your choice is among three or more specific things, then the use of "between" is appropriate. For instance:
Mary is choosing among several top schools.
but
Mary is choosing between Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. (Note the use of "between" when the different options are specific.)
Now, why are we doing this little grammar exercise? Because I just received a proof for a paper of mine. This journal lets you see the copy-edited version as well as the proof. In the copy-edited version, I noticed that this sentence had been edited:
"... there is a connection between Math Concept A, Math Concept B, and Math Concept C".
The concepts are very specific, therefore, according to Grammar Girl, "between" is appropriate. However, the copy editor changed it to "among".
Dear reader, do you think the copy editor was right? (Which would make Grammar Girl's advice wrong.) Clearly, we must have a poll:
If you think the copy editor was wrong, would you request that they change it back or would you just leave it alone because, really, who cares?
----
Cath brought up another interesting issue, so on to another poll:
We all know the difference between "between" and "among": use "between" when it's, well, a choice between two options, and "among" when you are talking about three or more. For instance:
I cannot choose between tiramisu and cheese cake. (This is a complete lie. I totally go for tiramisu every time.)
Among the deserts available at Fancy Restaurant, the best one is their tiramisu.
However, there's a bit of a caveat, as Grammar Girl taught me some time ago. When your choice is among three or more specific things, then the use of "between" is appropriate. For instance:
Mary is choosing among several top schools.
but
Mary is choosing between Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. (Note the use of "between" when the different options are specific.)
Now, why are we doing this little grammar exercise? Because I just received a proof for a paper of mine. This journal lets you see the copy-edited version as well as the proof. In the copy-edited version, I noticed that this sentence had been edited:
"... there is a connection between Math Concept A, Math Concept B, and Math Concept C".
The concepts are very specific, therefore, according to Grammar Girl, "between" is appropriate. However, the copy editor changed it to "among".
Dear reader, do you think the copy editor was right? (Which would make Grammar Girl's advice wrong.) Clearly, we must have a poll:
If you think the copy editor was wrong, would you request that they change it back or would you just leave it alone because, really, who cares?
----
Cath brought up another interesting issue, so on to another poll:
Monday, October 17, 2011
Random Irritations -- Episode II
In which GMP feels like the maid.
I have been working on a manuscript that is supposed to be the crowning achievement of my former PhD student's graduate work. He was with me for 5 years, published well (7 papers out, of which several very well cited), gave numerous conference talks. He also received the department's Best Dissertation Award. So this is not a student who can't write papers, and this one was supposed to be THE paper from his thesis.
It is really disappointing how much he no longer gave a fuck about writing this paper. I have been sitting on this draft since March (yes, March, I know; bad, bad professor). The version from March had three revisions in it already; I knew the back-and-forths were not getting us anywhere and that I would have to revise it thoroughly (this certainly contributed to the delay). So I have been working on it for the past 10 days pretty much the entire time I have been able to devote to work (still at home with baby, so I am working about 4-5 hours per day). This paper has me alternating between irritated and sad. I have essentially had to throw out completely and write virtually from scratch more than 80% of the paper (and it's a long paper). I have had to do a thorough literature search anew because I know there are a number of developments in the past 2 years that we need to cite but that for some reason the student didn't see fit to include. Also, the PACS numbers he had were from 4 manuscripts ago, he never bothered to look up appropriate ones.
When I edit papers, I know it's my job to make sure that nothing is missing, that everything looks polished, because my name goes on that paper as the lead author so it's ultimately my butt and my reputation on the line. But, really, there are some brainless bits that really don't require a PhD, just someone to give a fuck: for instance, why do I have to correct typographical issues like "Sec.", "Sect.", and "Section" all in the same paragraph, or abbreviating equation as "Eqn." whereas the journal requires "Eq."? What happened to reading the submission instructions carefully? My PhD advisor never explicitly told me to do that, I just did, it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. The extraordinary amount of time going into these details of editing make me feel like the maid, cleaning up sloppy messes after unruly grad student writers.
In which GMP desperately tries to get a hold of a funding agency's financial person.
I have a grant under a special solicitation that was supposed to start in the fall of 2008. Instead, due to combined delays in the processing at both the agency's and my university's side, it didn't start till late in the spring of 2009. The end date however is now late fall 2011, which would make the grant's duration less than 3 years, and this solicitation is very specific about the 3-year duration. My program manager says no problem, they will issue a change of end date, talks to the agency's financial department, they say OK, he sends an email to me and them and everyone seems happy. That was two months ago. Since then I have tried to get ahold of anyone on their financial side, and my PM too, all unsuccessfully. Leaving messages and emails. Nothing. I really, really need them to extend that grant till the spring. Very frustrating.
Not irritating, just kinda funny.
A very nice and very competent department financial specialist felt he needed to do some basic arithmetic for us on a grant expiring this month. The emails were literally "You have this much, of which this much in direct costs. How do you want to spend them?" My postdoc and I sent him "We'll charge this, that, and the other." He followed with an email in which he literally subtracted the costs and gave us the total (highlighted in yellow, I kid you not) with the words "This is how much you will have left after everything you sent me is spent." I couldn't help but giggle -- apparently, us folks with PhDs in a highly technical discipline cannot be trusted to add 3 expenses together and subtract the sum from the available budget.
I have been working on a manuscript that is supposed to be the crowning achievement of my former PhD student's graduate work. He was with me for 5 years, published well (7 papers out, of which several very well cited), gave numerous conference talks. He also received the department's Best Dissertation Award. So this is not a student who can't write papers, and this one was supposed to be THE paper from his thesis.
It is really disappointing how much he no longer gave a fuck about writing this paper. I have been sitting on this draft since March (yes, March, I know; bad, bad professor). The version from March had three revisions in it already; I knew the back-and-forths were not getting us anywhere and that I would have to revise it thoroughly (this certainly contributed to the delay). So I have been working on it for the past 10 days pretty much the entire time I have been able to devote to work (still at home with baby, so I am working about 4-5 hours per day). This paper has me alternating between irritated and sad. I have essentially had to throw out completely and write virtually from scratch more than 80% of the paper (and it's a long paper). I have had to do a thorough literature search anew because I know there are a number of developments in the past 2 years that we need to cite but that for some reason the student didn't see fit to include. Also, the PACS numbers he had were from 4 manuscripts ago, he never bothered to look up appropriate ones.
When I edit papers, I know it's my job to make sure that nothing is missing, that everything looks polished, because my name goes on that paper as the lead author so it's ultimately my butt and my reputation on the line. But, really, there are some brainless bits that really don't require a PhD, just someone to give a fuck: for instance, why do I have to correct typographical issues like "Sec.", "Sect.", and "Section" all in the same paragraph, or abbreviating equation as "Eqn." whereas the journal requires "Eq."? What happened to reading the submission instructions carefully? My PhD advisor never explicitly told me to do that, I just did, it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. The extraordinary amount of time going into these details of editing make me feel like the maid, cleaning up sloppy messes after unruly grad student writers.
In which GMP desperately tries to get a hold of a funding agency's financial person.
I have a grant under a special solicitation that was supposed to start in the fall of 2008. Instead, due to combined delays in the processing at both the agency's and my university's side, it didn't start till late in the spring of 2009. The end date however is now late fall 2011, which would make the grant's duration less than 3 years, and this solicitation is very specific about the 3-year duration. My program manager says no problem, they will issue a change of end date, talks to the agency's financial department, they say OK, he sends an email to me and them and everyone seems happy. That was two months ago. Since then I have tried to get ahold of anyone on their financial side, and my PM too, all unsuccessfully. Leaving messages and emails. Nothing. I really, really need them to extend that grant till the spring. Very frustrating.
Not irritating, just kinda funny.
A very nice and very competent department financial specialist felt he needed to do some basic arithmetic for us on a grant expiring this month. The emails were literally "You have this much, of which this much in direct costs. How do you want to spend them?" My postdoc and I sent him "We'll charge this, that, and the other." He followed with an email in which he literally subtracted the costs and gave us the total (highlighted in yellow, I kid you not) with the words "This is how much you will have left after everything you sent me is spent." I couldn't help but giggle -- apparently, us folks with PhDs in a highly technical discipline cannot be trusted to add 3 expenses together and subtract the sum from the available budget.
Friday, October 7, 2011
How Much Is Enough for Tenure?
A little while I ago I had an email exchange with a colleague from a different university and a related but different field. He is new to the tenure track and is facing the common and aggravating vagueness in people's responses when trying to find out what the tenure criteria at his place actually are. Of course, he knows he needs to bring in grant money, publish, teach, and do service. He also knows that, since he's at a major research university (MRU), at least initially teaching has to be decent but needn't necessarily be earthshattering, and service needs to be adequate.
Research is the key to succeeding or failing on the TT at MRUs (a.k.a. R1's). But what about some concrete metrics? How much money is enough? How many papers (per year or perhaps cumulatively on the TT) are enough for tenure?
These criteria depend on the type of place you are, the field, and how your department ranks overall. I can speak of the criteria at my place, which is a large state MRU. In the physical sciences and engineering, we have several top-10 departments and I think all others are in the top 20. (I don't follow the ranking of the biomed fields, but we have a medical school and my understanding is that the biomed sciences at my place are very good. But I don't know enough about what their criteria for promotion are in terms of money brought in or publications.) So what follows holds in the physical sciences.
The number of papers obviously depends on the number of group members you have, but I would say the dependence is somewhat complex. Some people say that it's as many papers per year as you have group members -- presumably, the new ones don't publish, but the more senior ones publish more than one per year, so it roughly comes out right. I have actually found that the number of papers I typically publish (these are comprehensive papers in archival journals, I don't count conference proceedings) is roughly 5-7 per year. It has been that number for me since my 2nd or 3rd year on the TT, when I had 4 grad students, as well as right after tenure, with 1 postdoc and 8 students. When the group is smaller, I have more time to work on my own, and spend less time chasing money, so some of these publications are single-author or me actually doing the technical work for a collaborator (as opposed to delegating to a student). When my group is on the large side, I have to raise much more money to maintain it, meaning I spend much more time writing grants. Also, I spend much more time advising all these students (weekly 1-on-1 meetings take more time). Overall, I have found that at some point more students stops meaning more papers; the number of papers per year as a function of increasing group size flattens out or perhaps eventually even starts to drop (you don't want to be in that regime!). I have a very successful senior collaborator whose group always has 20-something people, of which probably 5 postdocs at any point in time. He churns out 10 papers per year, but they are all very high impact. For me, after some students graduated and left, I am now at 2 postdocs and 4 students and they are all very, very good (ranging from solid to brilliant). My postdocs truly rock. I can say I am quite happy with the size and composition of the group -- large enough for a diversity of projects and for group meetings to be meaningful, staggered well to maintain continuity, but small enough (especially in terms of how many newbies I have at any point) to be manageable and more resilient to funding fluctuations.
Which brings me to: how much money do you need to raise? It depends on how money-hungry the powers that be are. My dean loves good fundraisers, especially if you have large requirements in terms of space and equipment. I am a theorist, so my needs are very modest, but I have been a decent fundraiser. Perhaps the best advice I received was "You need to raise enough money to sustain a viable research group." I have seen people go after money for money's sake and their group swelled to more than they could manage and then eventually imploded quite spectacularly. You don't want to go from a 25-people lab to a 3-person lab over the course of one semester (true story), firing multiple techs and postdocs because all fountains dried up at the same time. It's important to realize what is it that you want to be doing, how many people you need (this may take a little while to find out) and then get the money to do it. Under the assumption that you have an idea how large the group should be to do what you envision, it's the financial support for all the group members + summer salary for yourself + equipment + materials, supplies, travel (say, 2 conferences per year per group member other than yourself). All with fringe benefits, overhead, and tuition where applicable. Perhaps a bit more, but once you have enough you should be able to allow yourself to exit the grant-writing mode for a semester or perhaps even a year, and simply do the work you promised to do.
So, to wrap this up, how much is enough?
In terms of money, you can track people's NSF funding (search awards) and I think DOE awards of late, but the DoD funding is more convoluted to find and so is most industry funding. The best way to estimate how much money someone has is by their group size. Again, I have heard the numbers of about $1M-$2M at tenure time to be considered respectable (a sign you know how to write proposals) in my and related fields (intersection of physics and engineering). Obviously, experimentalists have to raise more than theorists, and of course this number scales with the group size, but it seems these numbers are universally thought of as "nothing to sneeze at" (from CS to physics to electrical or mechanical engineering).
In terms of papers, go look at the records of recently tenured faculty in your field at comparable or better places, and see how many they have per year. At my place, the number 20+ from your group at tenure time keeps coming up. I think that's a good estimate. Papers with former advisor's group don't count for much in my experience, and I was strongly advised to sever ties with former group ASAP after starting on the TT.
Ultimately, the external letters of evaluation will put your standing in the context of your field and your career stage, so you want to be among the better ones of your cohort. You don't want the letters to say "Candidate is worse than A, B, and C, who all got tenure at comparable places." You want them to say "Candidate is on par with (or better than!) A, B, and C who got tenure at comparable places." Or better yet "Candidate walks on water, then turns said water into wine, and has left A, B, and C from comparable institutions so far in the dust that they are all still recovering from a coughing fit."
Research is the key to succeeding or failing on the TT at MRUs (a.k.a. R1's). But what about some concrete metrics? How much money is enough? How many papers (per year or perhaps cumulatively on the TT) are enough for tenure?
These criteria depend on the type of place you are, the field, and how your department ranks overall. I can speak of the criteria at my place, which is a large state MRU. In the physical sciences and engineering, we have several top-10 departments and I think all others are in the top 20. (I don't follow the ranking of the biomed fields, but we have a medical school and my understanding is that the biomed sciences at my place are very good. But I don't know enough about what their criteria for promotion are in terms of money brought in or publications.) So what follows holds in the physical sciences.
The number of papers obviously depends on the number of group members you have, but I would say the dependence is somewhat complex. Some people say that it's as many papers per year as you have group members -- presumably, the new ones don't publish, but the more senior ones publish more than one per year, so it roughly comes out right. I have actually found that the number of papers I typically publish (these are comprehensive papers in archival journals, I don't count conference proceedings) is roughly 5-7 per year. It has been that number for me since my 2nd or 3rd year on the TT, when I had 4 grad students, as well as right after tenure, with 1 postdoc and 8 students. When the group is smaller, I have more time to work on my own, and spend less time chasing money, so some of these publications are single-author or me actually doing the technical work for a collaborator (as opposed to delegating to a student). When my group is on the large side, I have to raise much more money to maintain it, meaning I spend much more time writing grants. Also, I spend much more time advising all these students (weekly 1-on-1 meetings take more time). Overall, I have found that at some point more students stops meaning more papers; the number of papers per year as a function of increasing group size flattens out or perhaps eventually even starts to drop (you don't want to be in that regime!). I have a very successful senior collaborator whose group always has 20-something people, of which probably 5 postdocs at any point in time. He churns out 10 papers per year, but they are all very high impact. For me, after some students graduated and left, I am now at 2 postdocs and 4 students and they are all very, very good (ranging from solid to brilliant). My postdocs truly rock. I can say I am quite happy with the size and composition of the group -- large enough for a diversity of projects and for group meetings to be meaningful, staggered well to maintain continuity, but small enough (especially in terms of how many newbies I have at any point) to be manageable and more resilient to funding fluctuations.
Which brings me to: how much money do you need to raise? It depends on how money-hungry the powers that be are. My dean loves good fundraisers, especially if you have large requirements in terms of space and equipment. I am a theorist, so my needs are very modest, but I have been a decent fundraiser. Perhaps the best advice I received was "You need to raise enough money to sustain a viable research group." I have seen people go after money for money's sake and their group swelled to more than they could manage and then eventually imploded quite spectacularly. You don't want to go from a 25-people lab to a 3-person lab over the course of one semester (true story), firing multiple techs and postdocs because all fountains dried up at the same time. It's important to realize what is it that you want to be doing, how many people you need (this may take a little while to find out) and then get the money to do it. Under the assumption that you have an idea how large the group should be to do what you envision, it's the financial support for all the group members + summer salary for yourself + equipment + materials, supplies, travel (say, 2 conferences per year per group member other than yourself). All with fringe benefits, overhead, and tuition where applicable. Perhaps a bit more, but once you have enough you should be able to allow yourself to exit the grant-writing mode for a semester or perhaps even a year, and simply do the work you promised to do.
So, to wrap this up, how much is enough?
In terms of money, you can track people's NSF funding (search awards) and I think DOE awards of late, but the DoD funding is more convoluted to find and so is most industry funding. The best way to estimate how much money someone has is by their group size. Again, I have heard the numbers of about $1M-$2M at tenure time to be considered respectable (a sign you know how to write proposals) in my and related fields (intersection of physics and engineering). Obviously, experimentalists have to raise more than theorists, and of course this number scales with the group size, but it seems these numbers are universally thought of as "nothing to sneeze at" (from CS to physics to electrical or mechanical engineering).
In terms of papers, go look at the records of recently tenured faculty in your field at comparable or better places, and see how many they have per year. At my place, the number 20+ from your group at tenure time keeps coming up. I think that's a good estimate. Papers with former advisor's group don't count for much in my experience, and I was strongly advised to sever ties with former group ASAP after starting on the TT.
Ultimately, the external letters of evaluation will put your standing in the context of your field and your career stage, so you want to be among the better ones of your cohort. You don't want the letters to say "Candidate is worse than A, B, and C, who all got tenure at comparable places." You want them to say "Candidate is on par with (or better than!) A, B, and C who got tenure at comparable places." Or better yet "Candidate walks on water, then turns said water into wine, and has left A, B, and C from comparable institutions so far in the dust that they are all still recovering from a coughing fit."
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Bizzeeee
'Tis that time of year again -- proposal time! There are hard and soft deadlines in October and November at multiple agencies of interest to my research program.
I am crazy busy. Smurf is not in daycare yet -- he should start soon, but I am not ready! Since this is going to be our last child, I want to enjoy him as much as I can, and, being on hard-earned leave, I don't have to teach, so I have lots of flexibility and, yes, I can be at home with him. Bottom line -- we will be paying for daycare but he won't be going for a little while longer. I know, my working-in-academia-and-being-on-sabbatical privilege is showing. But I am almost not feeling guilty about keeping him at home, because I (desperately !) want to reduce the chances of him getting incessant ear infections and ending up with tubes like both his brothers... It's so heartbreaking when babies get sick, cry inconsolably with pain and fever, and they are so little... :(
I am extremely happy with the group composition I have now (knock on wood). Everyone in the group is very, very good. My postdoc is awesome, I feel bad he didn't get any interviews this round, but he landed a very good fellowship that will enable him to stay here and work on his record for a couple of years more. He's improved his writing and presentation skills so much, and has diversified his portfolio, merrily interfacing with collaborating groups, that that it's been a joy seeing him mature. He's really going to be an amazing faculty. All the students I have now range from solid to brilliant, and are all working very hard, producing good work, and progressing steadily. I received two new grants as co-PI, so, together with the existing ones, everyone is taken care of till they are done. However, I need to raise more money to bring in a few new students and a new postdoc in order to have continuity. I have several grants expiring in the coming year and have been working non-stop on white papers to multiple agencies, and on staggering full proposal submissions so as to maximize my chances. It's fuckin' exhausting, especially since I work 9 pm - 1 am, and then whatever hours I can squeeze in during the day (usually 2 more, or 4 more total on a good day). Obviously, I am working much less than full time. While my workload is somewhat reduced (no teaching), I have been writing many more white papers and proposals than usual, so it's almost a wash...
Writing all the white papers and proposals has been kind of invigorating, because (1) it forces me to read up on the material I am not terribly familiar with but it's hot and novel and people want to fund it and it is in my very broad area, (2) I have to do so in a typically very short amount of time, and (3) on top of it I have to come up with a nontrivial idea (did I mention said field is outside of my comfort/immediate expertise zone? Yeah..)
It's hard, but real fun. Torturous and thrilling in equal measures.
So yes, busy. My blogging will likely suffer even more than usual in the coming weeks, but it's for a good cause. Crazy busy is the best kind of crazy.
I am crazy busy. Smurf is not in daycare yet -- he should start soon, but I am not ready! Since this is going to be our last child, I want to enjoy him as much as I can, and, being on hard-earned leave, I don't have to teach, so I have lots of flexibility and, yes, I can be at home with him. Bottom line -- we will be paying for daycare but he won't be going for a little while longer. I know, my working-in-academia-and-being-on-sabbatical privilege is showing. But I am almost not feeling guilty about keeping him at home, because I (desperately !) want to reduce the chances of him getting incessant ear infections and ending up with tubes like both his brothers... It's so heartbreaking when babies get sick, cry inconsolably with pain and fever, and they are so little... :(
I am extremely happy with the group composition I have now (knock on wood). Everyone in the group is very, very good. My postdoc is awesome, I feel bad he didn't get any interviews this round, but he landed a very good fellowship that will enable him to stay here and work on his record for a couple of years more. He's improved his writing and presentation skills so much, and has diversified his portfolio, merrily interfacing with collaborating groups, that that it's been a joy seeing him mature. He's really going to be an amazing faculty. All the students I have now range from solid to brilliant, and are all working very hard, producing good work, and progressing steadily. I received two new grants as co-PI, so, together with the existing ones, everyone is taken care of till they are done. However, I need to raise more money to bring in a few new students and a new postdoc in order to have continuity. I have several grants expiring in the coming year and have been working non-stop on white papers to multiple agencies, and on staggering full proposal submissions so as to maximize my chances. It's fuckin' exhausting, especially since I work 9 pm - 1 am, and then whatever hours I can squeeze in during the day (usually 2 more, or 4 more total on a good day). Obviously, I am working much less than full time. While my workload is somewhat reduced (no teaching), I have been writing many more white papers and proposals than usual, so it's almost a wash...
Writing all the white papers and proposals has been kind of invigorating, because (1) it forces me to read up on the material I am not terribly familiar with but it's hot and novel and people want to fund it and it is in my very broad area, (2) I have to do so in a typically very short amount of time, and (3) on top of it I have to come up with a nontrivial idea (did I mention said field is outside of my comfort/immediate expertise zone? Yeah..)
It's hard, but real fun. Torturous and thrilling in equal measures.
So yes, busy. My blogging will likely suffer even more than usual in the coming weeks, but it's for a good cause. Crazy busy is the best kind of crazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)