tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post2147859558710320778..comments2024-03-10T05:26:42.148-04:00Comments on My Biased Coin: The Job Search, Another PerspectiveMichael Mitzenmacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06738274256402616703noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-84537727687481797952008-01-27T11:15:00.000-05:002008-01-27T11:15:00.000-05:00What will make you stand out as one of the top two...<I> What will make you stand out as one of the top two or three that gets an interview?</I><BR/><BR/>A more interesting question is how the current requirements (lots of papers in FOCS/STOCS) have met their purpose. Say for example what would be the correlation between the ranking of top 50 PhD students 10-20 years ago by STOC/FOCS paper count and the ranking of 50 most influential theoreticians 10-20 years out of their PhD today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-64106243034712381252008-01-27T01:52:00.000-05:002008-01-27T01:52:00.000-05:00"The 'arrogance' part comes from the graduates and..."The 'arrogance' part comes from the graduates and how they are trained by the top twenty programs. ... I wonder how many CS graduates from top schools even apply to many institutions in the lower half of these rankings."<BR/><BR/>This isn't fair. How many of the institutions in the lower half of these rankings are recruiting theory CS candidates? The lower you go, the more likely you are to find schools looking only for video game design experts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-60467288579109017452008-01-26T15:03:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:03:00.000-05:00Regarding "arrogance":If you are at a top twenty U...Regarding "arrogance":<BR/><BR/>If you are at a top twenty U.S. program (to pick an arbitrary and quite imprecise cut-off) looking at applications, this is precisely how it will appear to you: many more candidates with lots of papers in top conferences than you could possibly bring in to interview. (On a positive note, even among the top twenty programs each place will see applications from a slightly different subset of candidates and will have different priorities in the search process.) <BR/><BR/>The "arrogance" part comes from the graduates and how they are trained by the top twenty programs. In CS, these top programs produce a huge percentage of all CS PhDs and many of them are educated to believe that the only academic jobs that they should aspire to are at these same institutions or those only slightly further down the list. There are over 100 institutions participating in the ACM Taulbee survey. I wonder how many CS graduates from top schools even apply to many institutions in the lower half of these rankings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-74133245368804664612008-01-26T11:11:00.000-05:002008-01-26T11:11:00.000-05:00I know a guy in a theory-ish area that made a "lat...I know a guy in a theory-ish area that made a "lateral move" (in terms of departmental ranking, student quality, etc) to a European institution that offered him much better pay and more possibilities for collaboration. <BR/><BR/>He gets to teach in English, but of course needs to practice the native language of his host country so he can get around.<BR/><BR/> It is possible for a US born, US educated person to get a job in Europe, and it can be better than the options that you might find in the states.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-25309388920587199742008-01-26T08:40:00.000-05:002008-01-26T08:40:00.000-05:00Anonymous #1 says:I was not necessarily referring ...Anonymous #1 says:<BR/><BR/>I was not necessarily referring to permanent academic positions. Mr. Mitzenmacher related how his experience in a non-permanent position that he obtained our of graduate school served as "bridge time" after which he got a permanent-track position. I won't say which European country I live in, but all Europeans like to tell you that it is MUCH harder to get a job in their country. I do not find this to be true. There are more positions in the US, but there is a much larger and better applicant pool. To get a permanent position, it is better to speak the language of the country you are in, but it is not impossible to learn a new language. If you just take one of these countries and look at the qualifications of people who have permanent positions, they are much lower than people in similar positions in the US.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-23136996848151310482008-01-26T06:06:00.000-05:002008-01-26T06:06:00.000-05:00if someone really wants to stay in research and th...<I> if someone really wants to stay in research and they cannot get a job in the US, they can always go to Europe. </I><BR/><BR/>This is hilarious.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous #1 -- From where do you have this idea? It is MUCH harder to get a permanent academic position in Europe than in America. I do not know what the situation is in all European countries, but in my country (which is one of the countries you mention) there is rather a decline in the number of academic positions. That is, for any new job created, usually someone else has to retire. This seems not to be the case in America to this extend. For instance, I don't believe that there are that many people retiring from Harvard Computer Science Department this year.<BR/><BR/>And another question: Do you speak all European languages on a level that you are able to teach in them? Don't think that you can everywhere give your lectures in English!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-44765201286905223842008-01-25T18:38:00.000-05:002008-01-25T18:38:00.000-05:00Anonymous #1 -- You bring up very interesting poin...Anonymous #1 -- You bring up very interesting points; thanks for the European perspective! <BR/><BR/>Anonymous #2 (grad student) -- I agree, it is depressing. I think you have to find the balance with the previous post, which is as anonymous 3 suggests was the positive one.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous #3 -- no arrogance intended. I was simply trying to describe what things look like from the point of view of a hiring committee. Perhaps you found yesterday's post more humble?Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161032642563814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-70967121322472445302008-01-25T18:28:00.000-05:002008-01-25T18:28:00.000-05:00yesterday was the positive perspective--today is t...yesterday was the positive perspective--today is the negative perspective. somehow this post struck me as very arrogant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-3002906968055270102008-01-25T16:36:00.000-05:002008-01-25T16:36:00.000-05:00This perspective is depressing :|This perspective is depressing :|Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-39985198404358092822008-01-25T10:03:00.000-05:002008-01-25T10:03:00.000-05:00Regarding the comment about there not being enough...Regarding the comment about there not being enough jobs for all the qualified candidates: if someone really wants to stay in research and they cannot get a job in the US, they can always go to Europe. Unlike the US, many countries in Europe (UK, France, Germany, Switzerland) have TONS of money right now for research funding. This has to do with the EU rule that 3.5% of the GDP must be spent on research. <BR/><BR/>Actually, given that the US economy is not doing that great, it is important that as a theory community, people think about the future. For example, at various STOC/FOCS business meetings, people have discussed how theory is a leaf rather than a high up internal node on the NSF CS funding tree and why this is a problem. Right now is the time when the European funding tree is being drawn, because there are many new funds being given out to research. If there are not enough theory people there, then perhaps theory will also end up as a leaf on that tree as well. It's not like there is not money available for research--it is just not in the US.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com