The "mental" game

I am a runner and rock climber, as I have mentioned before. Recently, it has been re-emphasized to me that one factor in the extraordinary performance and abilities of some of the "rock star" (e.g. really good) runners and climbers seems to be "mental" or attitude. Granted, they all work very hard at their sport, training for long hours, etc. But it is the mental capacity that fascinates me right now. One of my fellow co-worker scientists (who is an excellent runner sponsored by a shoe company) pointed out that one of these runner rock stars seems to be totally "zen" while running.. nothing gets this person down... and perhaps this saves or directs energy to where it is needed, and so energy is not "wasted" on stupid stuff, like getting mad about tripping over a rock.
What does all this have to do with science? Well I get mad a lot, at little things. And I feel like I need to work on my mental game.. flow don't force.. as one climber put it.
I know this is not very clear, I will work on making the ideas of this post clearer.
Comments??

What makes a good "group" web page?

Over the years, a lot of my 1st impressions and initial investigations into various departments, research groups, programs, etc have come from web pages.
I am thinking about this differently now that I am beginning to transition from postdoc to assistant professor. I think it is very important to have a good web page for the following reasons:
1. A web page puts a "face" on your research group
2. It can help set, define, and advertise the lab "culture" which is important for recruiting students and publicizing your work in an informal way
3. It is a good way for people to see the progression of your research if there are "news" sections, etc highlighting recent findings, publications, etc

I am starting to take notice of web pages that I like a lot, to get ideas for how to make mine. Does anyone have any favs to recommend or thoughts about what makes a good research group web page?

Here are some I like:
http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~asimpson/
http://www.chem.umn.edu/groups/haynes/
http://spot.colorado.edu/~nemergut/

OMG, what did I sign up for..??

I accepted the offer for the faculty position at "very awesome major university". I accepted it because I felt like with all the wonderful & abundant resources there, it would be easier for me to meet my research goals (and thus get tenure) compared to other places. I have recently learned (realized) that my own expectations are at least as high as, if not higher, than my future tenure committee at a very good school. I am ambitious, and want to do BIG SCIENCE... exciting science. I want to push my field.
This was my first interview, and it seems weird in some way to accept my first offer from my only interview. Kinda like buying the first dress you try on...? But this position in this department"fit" me so well!!
So now what?!?! I don't start till next spring/summer. I am currently finishing postdoc #2 and papers from postdoc #1. Smooth sailing, chill-out time right? When I start to think about what I signed up for.. assistant prof at very good school, I sometimes get attacks of FEAR, and I feel my breath taken away temporarily. Holy sh!t !! Can I really do this?? I got this fear attack yesterday when I got my first email from a potential student. This student is currently an MS student in my future dept. and is interested in doing a PhD with me, and wants to discuss this. I haven't responded, because I don't know what to say!!! Ack!! First of all, well I can't even organize thoughts into firsts. How do I decide..? I also find myself worried about this student's future career options, etc etc. Jeepers I am a mess over this.
I feel like I must not show any weakness or indecision, I must project leadership and confidence to the students. It's analogous to wild animals: if they sense fear (which they can, in body language for example) you're screwed. But at this point, I'm just trying to finish papers and then start writing grants, I do not know what to say to students yet..!!
Help..!!

Single-minded scientist

I won't be, and am not currently, a single-minded scientist type. I just want to state for the record, when I enter my independent career as a faculty member in academia, I will have a life. I will have a life during and up to and after the tenure review.
This has been on my mind a lot, as I am deciding to accept or decline a faculty position recently offered to me. Then, I read this post and I decided to put my intentions out to the world at large.
I run, rock climb, bake, do yoga, ski, hike, drink EtOH and visit family. I will do all of that AND be an excellent scientist in academia.
There is room for someone like me in academia. I refuse to fit the mold of the single-minded type. My balance-as I have mentioned before- is more skewed towards science and work than my climber friends for example, and that is an excellent choice for me, but I won't be single-minded about science.
This is all I have time for today, as I am about to leave the lab to go climb rock.

Taking up space: start-up package

I was recently offered a faculty position at an excellent public university (R1). I am being given all kinds of very helpful advice and information as I prepare my start-up package prior to my upcoming second visit and negotiations. The common theme of the advice I am receiving from all sources is "ask for what you need to be successful". Seems easy, but I am having a hard time with this. I have created a detailed document (including several tables) outlining my start-up budget. I know the total amount is significantly higher (by about 40%) than the average start-up package for new faculty in comparable departments. There is one reason my start-up is so high: one instrument I think I need is very expensive, it's cost accounts for roughly 40% of my total start-up budget.
It really freaks me out to ask for so much, hence the issue of taking up space. Obviously the space I am referring to here is not physical, rather it refers to asking for a lot of department resources. All my mentors (if it matters to anyone they are all male in this case), have advised me to literally not shy away and to ask for everything, despite the high grand total. Why am I freaked out? First, I do not want to create a situation where I start a new position and find myself resented by other faculty because I asked for (and received) way more $$ than they did. Secondly, and a bigger fear for me, what if my research ideas for this $$ instrument do not work? I know I can do a lot of my "bread-n-butter" low-hanging fruit type research on this instrument, but the "accessory" that I want which would allow me to pursue bigger, riskier questions is what makes it cost so much. What if this area of my research does not pan out? Have I wasted department resources that could have been better spent on something/someone else? That is what my fears boils down to I think.
So my start-up document currently contains two options: option 1 includes everything I want and has a huge grand total, while option two does not include the fancy, $ "accessory" and hence is a much more reasonable start-up amount. I know I should not give someone in charge two options, one much cheaper than the other.. I just do not want to seem unreasonable. My former postdoc advisor knows my research ideas and while he acknowledges they may be risky, he doesn't think they are impossible or totally crazy and he has advised me to ask for the grand total and not to be "wishy-washy" about it. He knows I have a tendency to start talking myself or my needs down as soon as I ask for something.
I think it just boils down to that fact that I do not want to be perceived as unreasonable, and I do not want to make promises that I may be unlikely to deliver (e.g. success on riskier research questions with fancy instrument).
I guess the worst thing that can happen is they say no to my grand total and I figure it out from there right??

Impolite, uncourteous reveiwers

It happens to all of us: we get a paper back from a journal including a review that contains hurtful comments. The thing is, this isn't necessary. We can all find a way to write "wow this section sucks I don't think these authors understand this concept" without saying just that. And in fact, it is much more helpful to find a constructive, objective way of saying illustrating a point. But it takes more time of the reviewer to hammer out exactly what is "wrong" and to defend their position than it does to write something like "clearly the authors just do not understand this concept".
Yes.. I just got a paper rejected from a journal. One reviewer had very nice, constructive comments and did not reject it. The second reviewer (the "meany") totally slammed it, but within the negative, impolite comments there are some constructive criticisms and some positive comments. the third reviewer seems to be ambiguous. The journal editor invites us to submit again after addressing the comments and it will be sent out for review again. I bet my co-authors will want to re-submit. We'll take the high road: we'll politely address the reviewers comments, re-write the paper, not play into the negativity, and in all likelihood it will get published. There is some eg0-swallowing that must be done to take the high road. I really want to vehemently object to reviewer #2s comment that clearly I do not understand concept X but I won't. Here in this blog though, I'll have it out. Reviewer #2 uses much of the same wording as I do in the paper to explain concept X but then concludes that we don't get it. Further, the reviewer doesn't object to our calculations of concept X... which makes it seem unreasonable to conclude that we just don't get it. I do see how the reviewer could be confused on some aspects of my wording though, and I will change it to make it less confusing. The really funny thing is that this reviewer DEMANDED that we PROVE to him/her one point. I think this person made this demand in clear anticipation that we would not be able to do it but we can and we will. I would not have written it if I could not have backed it up. And when I "prove" this point to the reviewer, I will enjoy the satisfaction that this subtley suggests that this reviewer is not as smart as he/she thinks. This will make the reviewer look bad, and I will enjoy it.
One thing I learned from my PhD advisor is to try to frame things in a positive manner. This does not mean "bull shit" or be insincere. It means that instead of focusing on the negative, find a way frame problems, unknowns, or criticism in a positive way. When I do this, I see that it brings people on board rather than putting up defenses and closing people off. I have seen this pay off in the short and long term for my former advisor in many ways, and I am seeing it pay off for me too. It is not always easy to do, but in the end, it pays off. I'm sure of it. And I have been approaching my reviews this way too. As a junior reviewer, I think I get a lot of the crappy papers out there, and I find a way to point out the problems without being condescending, snotty, mean, immature, etc. I would never have written "clearly the authors do not understand..." I would instead have written something to express the need for clarification, etc etc and backed it up with my perceived differences in my understanding vs. the authors.
This is how science goes. Within 1 week, I got an offer for a very excellent faculty position and I got invited to give a plenary talk at a conference, so I was flying high and feeling pretty good about myself.. until I got this paper rejected and read the reviews. Oh well, the latter is temporary and can be fixed.

My 1st academic job offer

So the phone interview turned into a 1-on-1 interview which resulted in an offer from this very excellent R1 school. They want to hire me, as an assistant professor. I am really excited and thrilled. It is really nice to be wanted and valued by a great department and school.
If anyone ever reads this, I can attest that a big factor in getting this job offer was that I do research exactly in the area they were looking to fill with this hire. This makes me feel way less badly about not getting interviews elsewhere. It likely does not mean that I wasn't good enough, it just means I wasn't what they were looking for in terms of bringing some particular scientific strength to their department. I know this may seem obvious; I was always told that search committees write these ads for a reason after much debate, discussion, etc but I guess it becomes clearer after having gone through the process. And there have been times when I have applied for a position that was kind of a stretch but nonetheless I argued that my research fit the ad description. I don't know if I would be less inclined to do that, but I am certainly more understanding of why I would not hear back in such cases.
Anyway,I really want this job. It is really kinda scary going through the negotiation process though. I want one really $$$$ instrument, and a bunch of semi-$$ instruments, a nice lab, funding for grad students for awhile, my summer salary for 1-2 yrs, computers, general lap supplies, etc. All this adds up to quite a large chunk of change, and I am afraid that I am asking for too much. Everyone says ask for it, they want me to be successful and that new instruments will bring new capabilities to the department, etc and this is one big way in which depts. get new instruments, etc. However, I find myself waking up at 5am freaking out thinking "did I really ask for that $$$$ instrument..? OMG!!" There are so many things I do not know. Like how much $$ is reasonable for chemicals and general lab supplies like beakers, what about balances?
Then I think about what I'll do once I get this stuff. How will I know how to structure an MS or PhD thesis for students? I can think of lots of ideas and specific research problems, but organizing them into someone's thesis is rather scary. It's not just me anymore, now I'm responsible for someone else..!! ACK. I really like the analogy that academic research labs run by a professor-PI are like small businesses, as discussed here.
Lastly, and most importantly.. the two-body problem. My husband does not want to move to the location of this university. He loves the area where we currently live, and I do too. But I have the excitement about this awesome job that dulls down the fact that the location is less than awesome for us. He doesn't have that. He does see that this is a very awesome and special position that is not likely to found or offered to me regularly at this point in my career. It is so awesome for many reasons but mainly because 1. it is an awesome school 2. Both the dept. and I think I would fit in very well. All my advisors, mentors, collaborators strongly urge me not to turn this one down*, and to find a way to make it work with my husband. I want to, but how can I ask him to potentially give up so much of what makes him really happy on a day-to-day basis for my career? He feels similarly.. he feels like how can he ask me to turn this down so he can have his fun every day.. but really, both these things are really important to both of us. I do not know how to find a compromise here. I know he is clinging to the hope that I will decide to turn it down b/c I will find a job like this elsewhere (in a better location) but I honestly do not think that is likely. It is a small world, and at this point I know the depts. in my field very well (as do my advisors) and we all agree that it is not very likely at all that this type of opportunity will open up in a place where my husband wants to live. Right now, I am just hoping that he will see things differently when we visit the university for the negotiations, etc.



*I have turned down other "good opportunities" before.. for example I turned down a postdoc position at a very good private university b/c my husband and I didn't want to live there and I didn't feel like it was "right". I feel differently about this position, despite the non-ideal location.