On constructive supervision

[fizzycist]

OP, This is a very common situation at my place.

I think it helpful both to set realistic expectations for the students and for yourself. If you enjoy mentoring grad students--independent of your research goals--then take on those students for whom mentoring would give you the most satisfaction. And don't stress over the short term results-- getting them to a successful graduation in under 7 years and a nice job after is what you are really after.

If your research ambitions are high then you are going to need to hire postdocs. That market is different and it is easier to spot folks who will fit what you need. (Of course getting the right ppl to apply is not easy but that's a different thread).

This strategy requires a lot of grants funding, so expect to submit dozens per year.

[mamselle]

Perhaps in contretemps to 5he thread of this, and a couple of other current discussions about the place of grant-funding achievements in faculty evaluations and hiring applications...

   https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2021/11/16/can-we-please-stop-paying-attention-to-grant-funding-on-researcher-cvs/

M.

[mleok]

Perhaps in contretemps to 5he thread of this, and a couple of other current discussions about the place of grant-funding achievements in faculty evaluations and hiring applications...

   https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2021/11/16/can-we-please-stop-paying-attention-to-grant-funding-on-researcher-cvs/

M.

At least in the reviews that I've received on my grant proposals and the grant panels I've served on, the existence of multiple concurrent grants is a disadvantage in terms of getting another one funded, as reviewers are very cognizant of the danger of a PI being overextended, as well as the potential for overlap and double dipping. You are also required to report the outcomes of any grants within the last five years as part of a NSF proposal, and the larger the prior grants, the larger the expectation of productivity. So, what Prof. Heard refers to, that reviewers rely to a great extent on prior funding to evaluate an applicant for a new grant doesn't ring true for me. As was pointed out in the comments, relying on publications also outsources the responsibility for evaluating the research impact of a professor to journal referees and editors. It's also a bit strange to hear these kind of complaints from a Canadian academic, since NSERC's funding model tends to spread out funding far more than NSF, or the ERC does.

[bio-nonymous]

Perhaps in contretemps to 5he thread of this, and a couple of other current discussions about the place of grant-funding achievements in faculty evaluations and hiring applications...

   https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2021/11/16/can-we-please-stop-paying-attention-to-grant-funding-on-researcher-cvs/

M.

Thanks for the link. The commentary there is pretty savvy-->in the comments section as well. In my little corner of science, upper administrators value grant funding as the number 1 criteria to determine success; papers are great (and necessary of course), but "show me the money".

It is so true that with grants, just as in the broader economy, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and those in the middle get the squeeze. Running a lab is like running a business, you need adequate capitol investment to be successful: it takes money to make money. Those with less capitol have a harder time competing with the big players to get more money--a vicious circle.

[mleok]

It is so true that with grants, just as in the broader economy, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and those in the middle get the squeeze. Running a lab is like running a business, you need adequate capitol investment to be successful: it takes money to make money. Those with less capitol have a harder time competing with the big players to get more money--a vicious circle.

Indeed, I can see the argument that the rich get richer, but I don't buy the claim that people get grants, aren't very productive with the funding, and then get more grants by virtue of having received grants in the past. A more reasonable causal path is that grants allow a lab to be productive because research is expensive, and that in turn allows the PI to be successful in future grant funding.

[theteacher]

Perhaps in contretemps to 5he thread of this, and a couple of other current discussions about the place of grant-funding achievements in faculty evaluations and hiring applications...

   https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2021/11/16/can-we-please-stop-paying-attention-to-grant-funding-on-researcher-cvs/

M.

Look, I hear such arguments all the time, including the "Scientist A vs. Scientist B" argument (which, BTW, I find amusing). Such arguments are popular among MR_30_years_expereince_never_received_fund.
The bottom line (as mentioned before by bio-nonymous), senior management wants people who can bring external money. Once you prove this capacity, you will be promoted and magically start getting invitations for critical university-level research committees (I speak from personal experience); and MR_30_years_expereince_never_received_fund won't be happy.

[Hibush]

Perhaps in contretemps to 5he thread of this, and a couple of other current discussions about the place of grant-funding achievements in faculty evaluations and hiring applications...

   https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2021/11/16/can-we-please-stop-paying-attention-to-grant-funding-on-researcher-cvs/

M.

Look, I hear such arguments all the time, including the "Scientist A vs. Scientist B" argument (which, BTW, I find amusing). Such arguments are popular among MR_30_years_expereince_never_received_fund.
The bottom line (as mentioned before by bio-nonymous), senior management wants people who can bring external money. Once you prove this capacity, you will be promoted and magically start getting invitations for critical university-level research committees (I speak from personal experience); and MR_30_years_expereince_never_received_fund won't be happy.

Having an adequate level of grantsmanship is a requirement. After that it gets a lot more specific, and people vary widely in how cynical they get in response to the low success rate in most grant programs. I think of the numbers similar to baseball batting averages. If you can hit 33%, you will be starting every game and getting a lot of hits. If you are batting 25%, you get a lot fewer opportunties as well as a lower sucess rate.

What constitutes "adequate" varies pretty widely. The average external funding for all R1s is $400K/prof/yr. The average for all R2s s $40K/prof/yr. Obviously disciplines vary.