I have been intrigued with the discussion about bad rec's and passed this
around some colleagues (individuals who are at all levels in science below
professor). Many are actively afraid of bad recommendations because they
do feel that there is an active emphasis on what's wrong, that that is
really the baseline for every decision. It is almost a bad morale
problem, it seems, among people I know to dwell on how incapable or
incompetent they are instead of the positive accomplishments.
One of the women I work with provided a particularly gray area story. She
is a PhD biochemist and a veterinarian, enjoys her freedom as a scientist
and has worked in a variety of settings by choice (curently she is a
molecular/cell level HIV biologist and phylogeniticist). Her intellect is
exceptional and her bench skills are outstanding - mostly because she
draws from SO many different areas of expertise that she is not stuck
knowing only a few molecular skills (as many new PhDs seem to come out
with). But she is definitely a different breed of scientist and
individual - she likes to change fields and career settings (it is
noteworthy to add that she also always gets her NIH grants - after nearly
15 years of this kind of nomad science career). She also uses all her
spare time (which is not much) to do a lot of volunteer work with the
public schools and local environmental science groups. However, she
remarked to me, on this topic, that she has basically gotten herself
blacklisted by a few key former employees who use the choice phrase "X
isn't committed to science" during phone interviews or recommendation
letter situations. She is the type of person to shrug it off but I find
the idea of this obviously gifted woman being blacklisted an utter shame.
Fortunately, her record speaks for itself most of the time. It is
surprising that in this scientific career track which ideally emphasizes
changing fields for experience, moving around, etc. that this woman isn't
queen bee. But it seems there is a double edge fo the blade: conformity.
This woman has someone become perceived as too rogue in her nonchalant
career path, or lack thereof. Her broad interests in education and
environmentalism - which should be peripheral (if not positive attributes)
to her employers in my opinion - have become negative targets for some
employers.
How can one really define "commitment?" Is that something that falls into
this black and white recommendation letter category that should doom
someone? To me, that kind of statement is not something that should be
judged because I really don't think it can be. As someone who has outside
interests that include education, I worry about being branded or
blacklisted in a similar way. In general, I think this whole thread about
alternate careers - while interesting and important for today's career
woes - has to be looked at against the backdrop of graduate training and
career recommendation letters. In my department, many PIs will criticize
anyone who expresses an interest in a non-academic career like teaching or
industry. Suddenly, you do run the risk of being blacklisted via a bad
recommendation - perhaps for only desiring something a little different
than the norm. Case in point: at a meeting of faculty last year, it was
actually proposed that some sort of more teacher-training friendly PhD
track be offered. Two faculty got so mad at this idea that they
threatened to leave, specifically because they perceived that including a
"teacher training program would severely degrade the quality of research."
I know this because a colleague of mine was the student representative and
literally wrote down key quotes from the meeting. To the woman from
Cornell who described her PhD/teacher-friendly program: I applaud that!
Man, though, you wouldn't get that where I work!!!
Most students I know who want these kinds of careers literally do hide
their feelings from their bosses because they know they run the risk of
getting screwed on a recommendation letter of any sort. It's like - some
bosses will literally try to screw you just because you don't do what they
want you do to... because your NOT pursuing an academic career is somehow
an EMBARRASSMENT to them. I think a lot of these gray cases fall into
these little petty political scenarios. I also think that PIs are not
really the best people to advice or recommend students on nonacademic
careers because they probably don't understand the job requirements and
are always on "grant/publication mode." For me, I had to find outside
mentors. I also have had enough discussions with my boss, though, to trust
her; she was one of the people who supported the teacher training
addition to our PhD program. Some readers, I'm sure, are thinking - geez:
you trust your boss... this is the same boss Jenn had? Hmmm.
As for Jenn, who has clearly become somewhat agitated [ :) ], I feel that
she also falls into a gray area. As readers may or may not realize now -
the cat's out of the bag - Jenn and I worked in the same lab. I think
Jenn's situation was gray for four extremely distinct reasons: First, her
project was disproven in the literature the week before her exams by a
competitor; Second, the boss was brand new and not broken in at all. The
boss, a still-untenured rouge woman in her own category, was just learning
the proper ways to prepare and interact with students. Jenn, as
illustrated by her posts, is also something of her own rogue person. She
was the one who trained me and critiqued all my writings early on and I
consider her brilliant, creative, exceptionally organized, and gifted with
scientific writing. Her successful career in biotech. (five years, with
promotions throughout) and now lawschool stand testimony to that. She did
keep her own hours a lot, though - working from 10 until midnight - and I
think the boss somehow perceived this poorly (we all have a saying in the
lab: if you work when the boss is not around, do you really work?).
Jenn, I think suffered from this a bit. Finally, Jenn also, to put in
mildly, had one of the worst examining committees in all times and they
took her apart, to a large degree, because they thought the boss was
helping her too much and the boss' answer to this was to withdraw
completely. Jenn was asked to retake and passed her exams the second time.
During this time, though, Jenn earned this reputation as being the failure
in the boss' eyes and literally had no support thereafter. I have always
looked upon Jenn's exams as a trial by fire - not only for Jenn's
roguishness but also for the breaking in of the roguish new young boss.
That the boss felt Jenn's exam committee was too hard was evident by the
fact that she told the next student she was not to have certain members on
the committee because of what happened to Jenn. I, coming just after
Jenn, though, had one of these people on my commttee and, last month, got
taken apart on my written thesis (my boss was hopping mad at that!). Does
this all sound too political to anyone? Frankly, the faculty politics in
these cases are simply insane!
Anyway - the boss' rec. letters when Jenn finally left reflected the
notion that Jenn had failed somehow - again, laden with overly critical
and subjective things like Jenn's commitment or creativity. I would like
to really see someone define "scientific creativity." I really have come
to the conclusion that research is 75% luck. I could have just as easily
been the one who chose Jenn's project and gotten blown at my exams too.
Jenn's leaving the dept. WAS a devastating blow - Jenn was the top recruit
in her class and most faculty were shocked to see her leave because she
had shone brilliantly during her early studies. No one talks about what
happened in that case much anymore; certainly the boss and I have never
aired our feelings on the matter fully. She, the boss, has realized that
I know and support Jenn but wouldn't say much on the matter for years
after Jenn left. I always felt I walked the line in the lab knowing both
women and relying on them for something/support. I always admired Jenn's
audacity to say enough is enough because she had certainly had enough.
Surprisingly, Jenn has been the biggest advocate of my toughing it out -
through the many times I have said I just can't take it anymore!
Recently, I had to audacity to go in and chat with the boss when Jenn was
starting lawschool and I told her this - she was visibly thrilled and had
nothing but genuine happiness, saying she hoped I would pass this on to
Jenn. I think the years since this have perhaps changed her mind in some
ways. Jenn is correct to point out that faculty can make mistakes too.
All I know if that when I defend, Jenn gets my dedication. She earned it.
She and all the other rogue women scientists out there; roguishness, it
would seem, is often an Achilles' Heel to women scientists!
Sarah Boomer
