BEST Magazine Issue #3 by Atlanta BEST Magazine

Atlanta

BEST Program

Issue 3: Spring 2015

Table of Contents When we leave, who’s to blame?.................................................................... 5 At least I’m not the only one going through this...................................... 6 How to say goodbye........................................................................................... 9 The Best of the BEST: Programs Across the Nation................................10 ASPIRE Modules Expand Training Opportunities...................................12 Deepening Understanding Through Science Communication.........16 Turns out they were right................................................................................18 Demystifying Business Casual.......................................................................20 SPEED Resume Review.....................................................................................22

In This Issue Difficult Conversations: Three articles explore faculty perceptions of the BEST program and offer guidance for leaving academia gracefully. BEST Comparisons: We arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t the only BEST program. What are other universities doing to prepare scientists for non-traditional careers? Public Outreach: Our Cornell gues writers explore the value of communicating science to the public. Professional Development: Lessons for career searches, professional attire, and reume preparation

Editor-in-Chief Kristen Thomas Editors Kylie Ainslie, Darcie Cook, & Kellie Vinal

Design Kristen Thomas, Darcie Cook, and Kylie Ainslie Photography (Atlanta) Tamara Hutto

Want to get involved? Email atlantabestmag@gmail.com

Difficult Conversations

How do we change the culture of academia? One conversation at a time.

Difficult Conversations: Part 1

When we leave, who’s to blame? Kristen Thomas Graduate Student, Atlanta BEST Cohort 1

“Don’t tell anyone, but I think the BEST program is driving our students and postdocs out of academia.” A few months ago, one of the faculty members in my graduate program spoke this exact sentence to me, apparently unaware of my involvement with this magazine and the fact that I was on the hunt for my next article topic. I’m sure other faculty within and outside of Emory have similar feelings toward the program, and this article is dedicated to all of them.

Now, as I participate in my program’s recruitment as a current student, I realize that many of our recruits feel the same way as I did. They are very interested in the BEST program and the resources that it provides, because they too are already considering careers outside of academia. They’re also relieved that at least some of our faculty members are supportive of the BEST program and its goals.

Every February, my program recruits a new batch of first year students. These recruits spend months Many students and postdocs currently in the BEST advertising how smart and talented they are and, program only recently decided to pursue non-tradiequally importantly, how enthusiastic they tional careers. I have yet to meet someone are about pursuing academic careers. who reached this decision because of Rather When I was in their position, I the BEST program. They’re driven than driving us out already suspected that academia there by the realities of scientific wasn’t for me. Yet I knew that I research and stiff competition of academia, the BEST wanted, even needed, to continwithin the academic job marprogram is keeping us ue my scientific training beyond ket, or because their talents and my bachelor’s degree. I had thorinterests are better fulfilled in other here... oughly researched careers in science careers. and knew that anything I could achieve without a PhD would ultimately be unfulfilling. Rather than driving us out of academia, the BEST program is keeping us here, encouraging us to For people like me, the admissions process feels like complete our degrees, finish our publications, and a bit of a charade. While I could honestly convey to value the experience rather than view them as my enthusiasm for science, conversations about my wasted years. If the only reason to finish our degrees future career goals felt uneasy. I might decide to pur- were to set us up for an academic career, many of us sue a career as a tenure-track professor at a major wouldn’t be here now. research institution, or I might pursue something “non-traditional”. I lacked the 100% certainty that admissions committees seek.

Difficult Conversations: Part 2

At least I’m not the only one going through this James Canner Postdoc, Atlanta BEST Cohort 2

hile enjoying some delicious coffee and snacks, about 30 BEST Trainees from both Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 met to discuss their experiences while explaining their desire not to pursue a traditional academic research career path. After small group interactions, an informal poll was taken. How many people feel their PI is supportive of the BEST Program? About 45% of hands were raised. How many people feel their PI is opposed to the BEST Program? About 20% of hands were raised. In a group of PhD candidates and postdoctoral fellows who all received a letter of support from their PI to join the BEST Program, less than 50% felt supported in their lab to pursue a career of their choice. In addition, several stories were told of other graduate students and postdocs who were unable to convince their PI to write a letter in order to apply to the BEST Program. Were faculty members serving on committees more supportive when candidates expressed their interest in alternative careers? Unfortunately, trainees’ expe6

riences with committee members were worse than PIs. Some trainees described the verbal assult that occurred in their committee meetings with the mention of their career goals. The majority of trainees felt it was easier to lie to their committees, rather than be told they are wasting everyone’s time by pursuing a PhD. Furthermore, everyone in the room has written on a fellowship their ultimate career goal is starting an academic research lab. Why would a group of upstanding young scientists be scared of telling the truth? One fear trainees expressed involved job security, whether a postdoc would be asked to leave the lab, or a graduate student’s defense date being delayed. However, the major concern of trainees was the possibility of damaging the relationship with their PI. Besides the obvious loss of a letter of recommendation, trainees were worried about the loss of projects, changes in authorship on manuscripts, or just a general lack of focus from the PI on their work. While the conventional wisdom may state that since BEST trainees plan on leaving academic research, they don’t need the publications; trainees know that productivity is a measure of success for any future career, and having tangible results to show future employers is invaluable. In addition, everyone who is pursuing a PhD in the biomedical field has a genuine love of science and wants to contribute.

At the end of the day, honesty is the best policy. Obviously, PIs’ resistance to their trainees pursuing careers outside of academia is grounded in very valid concerns. The most prominent fear from PIs is the loss of productivity from their trainees. Faculty members are judged by their publication rate, oftentimes with their careers tied to the next manuscript. Therefore, when PIs pay grad students and postdocs to work in their lab, the PI has an expectation that work will be completed in their lab. One way to handle this concern is to stress to the PI that career development activities are extra time, not lab time. Furthermore, finding ways to cover the trainee’s stipend - such as a fellowship/training grant, departmental/core facilities job, teaching - will give added leverage when discussing extra activities. In addition, graduate students and postdocs are trainees, meaning that the PI has invested time to train them in order to complete the work. Therefore, when a trainee leaves, the PI will not only have lost the time it took to train them, but will also lose the time it takes to train a replacement. One way to approach a PI about this issue is to set project goals and discuss timelines. As trainees begin their job searches, keeping the PI informed ensures that they can plan accordingly. Setting milestones and defining an end will help everybody be as productive as possible.

One last concern a trainee will have to address is the PI’s broken vision of the trainee’s career. While most PIs understand that cloning themselves is not feasible, they still are judged by how well they can produce academic researchers. Therefore, the trainee’s decision to explore a different career may cause the PI to think that decision will reflect poorly on them. One way to assuage this concern is to emphasize that it is the trainee’s career, and that them leaving academic research is not a blemish on the PI’s CV. However, if a PI is still obstructing the pursuit of alternative careers, there are mechanisms to resolve this conflict. A trainee can seek help from department chairs, graduate program directors, or other personnel in graduate school/postdoctoral administration offices. At the end of the day, honesty is the best policy. It will be the most supportive to both parties and hopefully prevent the relationship from deteriorating. Being open about career choices and job searches should help garner support from the PI. However, it is the trainee’s career and life, and if they do not need their PI’s help, then why foster a negative relationship?

“In the end, the conversation went extremely well.”

“My PI respected my decision and appreciated that I cared as much for the circumstances and well-being of the lab as my own personal needs.”

Difficult Conversations: Part 3

How to say goodbye Anonymous Atlanta BEST Cohort 2

uring our coffee hour, I listened to many BEST trainees from both cohorts discuss their experiences expressing interest in careers outside of the traditional academia pathway with their primary investigator or committee. I related to many trainees who had little support for their alternative career choice or, in some cases, negative experiences when expressing interests outside of the research field. I had faced similar situations in the past. I found that when the initial response was negative from a PI or committee member, it kept me from mentioning my desire to transition outside of traditional academia again to that particular person. I found alternative mentors and supplemented my research activities with as many opportunities I could find. Like many of my fellow trainees, my PI only cared if my other activities interfered with my data collection and research results. Committed to leaving research, I made sure to have as many informational interviews with the BEST session speakers who spoke regarding the education track. These meetings led to an actual job interview, which came sooner than expected. I found myself in the predicament of navigating a difficult conversation, which was perfect for the coffee hour discussion. I had an interview, but had not opened the discussion about leaving my postdoctoral position to my mentor. I was concerned with disappointing my mentor and tainting the rest of my lab experience with negativity because I was actively looking to transition careers. None of the other trainees had handled this type of talk but gave me the best advice and tips to broach the topic with my boss: 1) Have the conversation as early as possible. This factor helps all parties plan an exit strategy with regard to experiments, meetings, and publications. I found that having the discussion before the

interview was the best circumstance, allowing me 3 months to complete any projects. 2) Schedule an appointment. Whether the PI has an open door policy or not, this conversation is significant and requires time. The PI will also expect the level of importance because the time was scheduled. 3) Be Honest. I had already expressed my interest in teaching and participated in a teaching assistantship and various fellowships while in my current lab, so my PI knew my interest in the field. I let him know the exact circumstances and what that would mean for my position in the lab. 4) Let your PI know you still care about the research and the lab by outlining goals and deadlines before you leave. I had worked out an exit strategy before I had my meeting, which included project status, training of other lab members, planned meetings and draft deadlines for future publications. 5) Finally, thank the PI for the experience. My PI allowed me the freedom to explore my career options and perform really cool research. In the end, the conversation went extremely well. My PI respected my decision and appreciated that I cared as much for the circumstances and well-being of the lab as my own personal needs. My PI recommended a few masters programs at local universities if I wanted to pursue more training in the education field. He also invited me to come back and perform more research during summer breaks, which is the best indication that the conversation was a success.

BEST Comparisons: Part 1

The Best of the BEST: Programs Across the Nation

Darcie Cook & Kylie Ainslie Graduate Students, Atlanta BEST Cohort 2

he NIH has long been committed to facilitating biomedical research and research training in an academic setting. However, growing unhappiness among trainees within purely academic positions and the lack of available positions has necessitated a shift in NIH’s mission. According to the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), 78.3% of faculty positions were tenure-track positions in 1969; however, in 2009, only 33.5% of faculty positions were tenure-track . With so few tenure-track positions available in colleges and universities, recent Ph.D. graduates are prepared for an increasingly harsh reality in today’s academic climate. The academic research climate has long been one of training students for tenure-track research positions; however, it is becoming increasingly more common for students to pursue positions outside of this traditional realm. Unfortunately, universities often lack professional development resources to prepare graduate students and post-doctoral fellows for transitioning to careers outside of academia. In the past, trainees have been tasked with navigating this process on their own. The BEST program seeks to correct this, offering universities the funds to establish professional development programs and produce professional students ready for both the academic and non-academic world. The NIH recognizes that trainees can contribute to biomedical research in meaningful ways other than 10

as academic faculty. In September 2013, the NIH announced a $3.7 million commitment for awards to provide trainees exposure to and preparation for careers outside of conventional academic research including industry, government, business, and others. The Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) awards “‘are intended to expose trainees to the multitude of career paths that utilize their Ph.D. training,’” said Sally Rockey, Ph.D., Deputy Director for Extramural Research in an NIH press release announcing the BEST awards. The BEST awards offer 5 years of funding to participating schools to create and disseminate curricula designed to expose trainees to research-related careers outside of academia through lectures, workshops, and internships. After 5 years, the NIH hopes the participating schools will take over funding responsibilities to continue programs developed using the BEST awards . In the first round of funding, the NIH awarded BEST grants to 10 universities. Although each program has developed its own model, all ten share common themes: career exploration, professional development, and internship opportunities. Career exploration is explored two main ways: a “career track” breakdown (NYU STEP, Emory/GT BEST, Cornell BEST) or broad exposure to a variety of careers through workshops and lectures (UC Denver, UCSF MIND, UC Davis FUTURE, UMass Med, Vanderbilt ASPIRE, Wayne State, Virginia Tech). Professional development is also tackled in a variety

of ways from semester long courses to individual modules that can be attended à la carte. Most programs focus on professionalism, communication, and networking. One consistency is an emphasis on using myIDP (Individual Development Plan) to set milestones for accomplishing both research- and career-related goals. Although myIDP is a great resource to begin career exploration, it can only take students so far. The BEST awards allow universities to help their trainees build upon the foundation established with myIDP. In addition to myIDP, programs are also using other assessments, such as the Birkman Method, Strong Interest Inventory, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, etc., to provide trainees insight into their interests and ideal work environment. The involvement of PIs is a crucial component of the goals of the BEST programs. While most programs require some sort of support or PI acknowledgement, the UCSF MIND program is unique in that there is zero PI involvement. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Boston University BEST program requires faculty participation in mentoring their students to change the perception that careers outside of academia are not worthwhile. In order to facilitate the necessary change in academic culture, PIs must be aware of alternative careers and accepting of their trainees desire to pursue them. Institutions have developed various methods to track student progress through the program and beyond. Cornell BEST features a point system for attendance to BEST sessions and will award a certificate to trainees who earn enough points. UC Davis FUTURE has both a certificate program and a self-directed à la carte program. The Emory/GT BEST program has a unique cohort model where students must apply and be accepted as a small class that stays together for the duration of the two-year course and internship. Students meet 3-4 times a month with modules varying between leadership skills, professional development, and career exploration. The UCSF MIND program also requires an application but is less intensive: professional development consists of 3 full-day courses with the bulk of the program being monthly meetings for career exploration in mentorled peer teams. The final component of these programs involves some sort of practical experience such as an intern-

ship. This has proved to be quite an endeavor as schools begin to develop professional relationships with businesses and other organizations. The hope is that with time the BEST-funded programs will be able to facilitate transitions into alternative careers with these internship experiences. In 2014 the NIH announced the second cohort of BEST institutions. Seven institutions (University of Chicago, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, University of Rochester, University of California Irvine, Boston University Medical Campus, Michigan State University, and Rutgers) joined the original ten BEST institutions for a total of seventeen. A couple of the schools from the second round of funding have hit the ground running. UNC-Chapel Hill’s BEST program (UNC ImPACT) will expand their TIBBS program - Training Initiatives in Biomedical & Biological Sciences - to offer resources and guidance to trainees seeking careers outside of academia and industry . Rutgers has launched their Interdisciplinary Job Opportunities for Biomedical Scientists (iJOBS) program that features four phases with events open to all preand post-doctoral students. However, individualized mentorship opportunities are available for those who formally apply. The remaining second round institutions have not begun their programs. The MSU BEST program will conduct an experiment to determine whether interventions (workshops, externships, IDP, etc.) will enable BEST Scholars to be more successful than trainees not engaged in BEST. The UR BEST program is organized in a semi-cohort model in which events are open to all pre- and post-doctoral trainees, with the option of developing an individualized curriculum. Despite a variety of program styles, “the only thing that people have been saying is that they don’t have enough resources, meaning they don’t have enough space because so many people are participating,” says D’Anne Duncan, BEST Program Manager. “Everybody is really excited about the [BEST] program, from the trainee perspective.” While there are still kinks to work out among many of the BEST Programs (as with any new program), the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. The BEST Program fills a gap that has desperately needed to be filled within academia. 11

BEST Comparisons: Part 2

ASPIRE Modules Expand Training Opportunities

Elizabeth Conrad Graduate Student Dept of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics

Ashley Brady ASPIRE Program Manager Photo Contributor

Guest Writers from Vanderbilt University

“I

honestly had no idea what to expect, but was impressed by what was offered,” said a trainee who participated in this fall’s Technology Commercialization module, one of five short courses launched this fall as part of the Vanderbilt ASPIRE Program. The Vanderbilt ASPIRE (Augmenting Scholar Preparation and Integration with Research-Related Endeavors) Program was established in 2013 to prepare biomedical sciences graduate and postdoctoral trainees to make well-informed career decisions and to provide them with the resources and support needed to help them transition to a wide variety of research and research-related careers. ASPIRE is administered by the Office of Career Development within the Biomedical Research Education & Training (BRET) Office, which offers educational programs in career planning and management to trainees at all stages of their development. The ASPIRE program consists of 3 phases: an IMPACT phase, EXPLORE phase, and ENHANCE phase. • IMPACT phase is specifically designed for firstyear PhD students in the basic biomedical sciences and provides early trainees a solid foundation on which to begin to build their scientific careers. Led by Vanderbilt faculty, IMPACT establishes a strong mentoring environment and exposes students to various topics on professionalism in the sciences. • EXPLORE phase targets PhD students in years 2-3 of training, as well as postdoctoral fellows. This phase focuses on jumpstarting career management through self-assessment, networking and planning. Participants in this phase have the opportunity to shadow a professional at their job for 1-3 days through the ASPIRE externship program. • ENHANCE phase is intended for post-qualifying PhD students and postdoctoral fellows. This phase represents the capstone phase of ASPIRE and includes didactic modules, as well as the opportunity to gain hands-on-experience through participation in internships (to be launched Fall 2015). Externship and internship opportunities will be open to all trainees on a competitive basis, with participation in ASPIRE programming, such as one

of the Modules, taken into consideration during evaluation of applications. The ASPIRE Modules, which are part of the ENHANCE phase, were launched in the fall of 2014. In general, the modules were designed to provide trainees with broad exposure to a field they have identified as a career interest, as well as opportunities to network with local experts and leaders in the field. Over 135 trainees (post-qualifying Ph.D. students and postdocs) registered to participate in five unique, non-credit bearing elective courses. ASPIRE Modules were designed to focus on three theme areas identified as cross-cutting skills relevant to the diverse career outcomes of our alumni: business and entrepreneurship, communication and clinical research. Of the modules offered this fall (cf. Table 1), class size ranged from 6 to 120, depending on the structure and objectives of the course. Some modules, such as Technology Commercialization and Introduction to the Principles and Practices of Clinical Research, were opened broadly to faculty, staff and members of the larger Nashville community as a way to provide further exposure and facilitate networking for our trainees. One of the communication modules, Biomedical Research and the Media, directed by Wayne Wood, MLAS, Executive Director of New Media Production at Vanderbilt University Medical Center News and Public Affairs, was limited to six trainees and provided exposure to science communication to the lay public via print journalism, media relations, social media, and media training. All participants had the opportunity to write and receive critical feedback on three print pieces, many of which have subsequently been published in the Vanderbilt Reporter, the university’s medical center publication with a circulation of 8000. “I think the real value of these modules is to expose graduate students and postdocs to potential career paths outside of the lab. Even now, the gulf between the lab and jobs outside the lab seems quite large and efforts like this help give young scientists insight into how to make the transition,” said one module participant. 13

This spring, ten trainees are participating in a new module, STEM Teaching in K-12 Schools, directed by Jennifer Ufnar, Ph.D., Director of the Scientist in the Classroom Partnership Program, Department of Teaching and Learning, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. This course is comprised of four didactic sessions with a voluntary placement in a school classroom for up to one full day. Trainees are learning about the inner workings of the middle and high school classroom, including the policies and structures governing school districts in Tennessee, teaching and course development strategies, qualities of effective educators, and an understanding of careers in the K-12 sector. “These Ph.D. trainees and postdoctorate fellows have amazing critical thinking skills and are being trained by the best in the country. The ASPIRE pro-

gram is making them excellent job candidates by readying an already-elite group,” says Kate Stuart, Program Manager for the Office of Career Development. “Our goal is not to try to divert everyone in their training here at Vanderbilt out of academia. This is supposed to augment their options,” says Ashley Brady, Ph.D., ASPIRE Program Manager and Director of Career Engagement and Strategic Partnerships, regarding the mission of the modules. The final component of the ASPIRE Program will be an internship and externship program, to be launched in the fall of 2015. This initiative will offer trainees the opportunity to broaden their skills outside of the lab and classroom setting. “We’re targeting these modules to give students and postdocs

ASPIRE Modules 2014-2015 Schedule Course Title Technology Commercialization

Course Description

Participants learn fundamentals of protecting and commercializing early stage technology from academic technology transfer experts, local industry leaders, and entrepreneurs Effective Oral Communication This course provides basic instruction, practical Methods experiences, and critical, but supportive, feedback in techniques for oral preseentation of scientific matter Biomedical Research and the Trainees receive guidance from Vanderbilt News Media and Public Affairs professionals in the area of writing stories for print journalism, media relations, social media, and media training in interview Foxtering Relationships at Participants learn to develop interpersonal skills Work from a practicing psychologist including conflict resolution, emotional intelligence, and workplace communication Introduction to Principles and Vanderbilt served as a registered remote site to Practice of Clinical Research deliver the NIH Clinical Center’s annual course which (IPPCR) includes sessions on study design and statistics, ethical and regulatory considerations, and preparing and monitoring of clinical studies STEM Teaching in K-12 School Participants learn about the inner workings of the middle and high school classroom, including the policies and structures governing school districts in Tennessee, teaching and course development strategies, qualities of effective educators, and an understanding of careers in the K-12 sector 14

Trainees 28

exposure to specific career areas or professional skills so that if they participate in our internship program they will be better prepared going into their internship,” said Brady. The novelty of these modules and the careful design of the entire ASPIRE program provides trainees with resources, exposure and experience. The hope is that this will prevent trainees from either struggling to find an appropriate niche in the research realm or unnecessarily wasting valuable time outside the lab searching for these resources. “These highly-trained scientists have so much to offer and it is very important for us to give them the experiences and tools to go out and utilize their background and training to make a difference in the world, and that’s not only through experiments in the lab. It’s our responsibility as other scientists, as taxpayers, and as members of society to support and nurture our scientists to utilize their talents in the best way possible,” Brady said.

Some of the content of this article was originally featured in the Vanderbilt Reporter. To learn more about the Vanderbilt ASPIRE Program, please visit the ASPIRE website at: https://medschool. vanderbilt.edu/aspire or contact Ashley Brady, Ph.D., ASPIRE Program Manager.

The ASPIRE program is supported by a five-year, $1.2 million “BEST” (Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training) grant (1DP7OD018423) from the National Institutes of Health. The program is co-directed by Roger Chalkley, Ph.D., senior associate dean in the Office of Biomedical Research Education & Training, Kathleen Gould, Ph.D., associate dean for Biomedical Sciences and director of Graduate Student Support, and Kim Petrie, Ph.D., Director, Office of Career Development.

Deepening Understanding Through Science Communication Sheila Saia Graduate Student, Cornell University

Ben Brown-Steiner Postdoc, Cornell University

As scientists we are part of a larger community and are called to serve that community by sharing our research in meaningful ways. However, our research is only a portion of a greater whole, so interactions with our community are as much about learning as they are about teaching. By volunteering in our community we gain a sense of purpose and context for our work, build a unique skillset, develop a deeper understanding of the scientific complexities we study, and ultimately become better scientists, researchers, and community members. Here, we share two experiences that demonstrate the value in volunteering and interacting with our communities through science communication. Understanding a community through science communication (By Sheila Saia) As a graduate student studying the transport and cycling of nutrients in the environment, I believe it is my responsibility to share my insights from the lab and field with the community (e.g. farmers, land owners, educators) to improve local water resources. I reached out to a local Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) office and have been volunteering there for the last year and a half. For readers who are not familiar with the Extension services of Land-Grant Universities, the mission of CCE is to “...[put] knowledge to work in pursuit of economic vitality, ecologically sustainability, and social well-being…[and] bring local experience and research based solutions together…”. As a volunteer with CCE I have had the opportunity to write several articles on water quality and soil health for a local newspaper column. Writing to a broad audience has enabled me to further develop my communications skills. I have also attended farmer and community meetings to learn about relevant local water quality issues. These experiences 16

have been especially educational as they expose me to the complexities of managing water resources for different stakeholders. Volunteering with CCE has provided me with some more nuanced opportunities as well. Specifically, my interactions and collaborations with CCE staff, local farmers, community members, and county leaders have offered a refreshing change from my daily routine as a graduate student. At times, it is easy to get overwhelmed with deadlines or frustrated with a line of code, but returning to the CCE office week after week reminds me of the larger positive impact my research and the research around me has on local and global water resources. As I look forward to the future, I believe volunteering with CCE has provided me with a unique skillset that will benefit me as I work to tackle complex and pressing water quality and quantity issues. In addition, these experiences have inspired me to develop research questions that inform local and global water resources issues. It is easy for me to imagine my future-self being more fulfilled in a working environment where I can share my research with the community.

Understanding a scientific phenomenon through science communication (By Ben Brown-Steiner) Last year I had the opportunity to guest lecture in a sixth grade science classroom teaching the fundamentals of atmospheric science, one objective being to understand why the sky is blue. During the process of creating the lesson plans I knew I needed to heed the advice from Albert Einstein: “everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.” I needed to not only understand the phenomenon, but to also be able to explain it in an intuitive and understandable way. Through my university classes I had a good understanding of why the sky is blue, but my understanding depended upon the use of symbols and equations representing the individual concepts. But for these sixth graders I couldn’t use any math! Translating my understanding in a way that sixth graders could understand and find interesting was difficult at first, but ultimately a rewarding process.

then became a bright, unmistakable sky blue. The classroom burst into excited shouts: “Look! It’s the sky!” and “Wow!” As more particles formed the solution became milkier and the blue was replaced with yellows, oranges, and reds. Our artificial sun now looked like a beautiful setting sun. More exclamations of “Look it’s changing!” and “The sun’s setting!” convinced me that my message was getting through and that the students were learning. However, the students weren’t the only ones learning. Even though I understood and trusted the physics and chemistry, it wasn’t until our artificial sun actually started changing colors that I felt like I truly understood the phenomenon. My intellectual belief in the physics behind the phenomenon changed to a more intuitive real-world understanding. The demonstration provided me with not only a deeper understanding, but also the opportunity to experience the joy and thrill of science that I remembered as a child.

To demonstrate this concept I performed a demonstration of the Tyndall Effect. I created a small artificial sun using an overhead projector and a circular stencil. On top of the stencil, I placed a beaker of clear sodium thiosulfate that allowed the light from the projector to travel straight through the beaker and onto the wall. I then taught a little about how the white sunlight is really a mix of colors made up of different wavelengths, and I used a prism to show how we can separate these colors to create a rainbow. I talked about how certain colors scatter more readily when they encounter particles in the air, and that blue light is the first to scatter. Because of this most of the sky looks blue to us. Also, I talked about how when sunlight has to pass through a thicker atmosphere, as it does when it’s rising or setting on the horizon, other colors in addition to blue are also scattered and eventually all that remains are oranges and reds. That’s why a setting sun looks red. After explaining the concept, I added a few drops of hydrochloric acid and gave the solution a stir. Gradually, the chemicals reacted to create tiny particles that would scatter the light from the projector. At first the solution looked hazy as particles began to form. Our white artificial sun dimmed slightly, and 17

Turns out they were right

Big lessons from my (successful) job search

Bart Anderson Former Postdoc, Atlanta BEST Cohort 1 During my time in BEST I heard several messages repeatedly, but I didn’t really understand their importance until I sat down to write this. As I reflected on the success of my own job search, I found that the biggest factors that made it successful were those exact messages that I kept hearing over and over. 1. Know yourself

2. Networking works

When I began in BEST I had some idea of what career path I wanted to pursue. As I reflected on the assessments—such as the Birkman Method, Strong Interest Inventory, and myIDP—I gained an even better understanding of what I want out of my career. Starting with knowing what is important to me in a career and looking for careers that fit that profile allowed me to consider additional paths.

Sometimes it felt like no matter what topic we were discussing at a BEST event, the answer was always “network.” As uncomfortable as that makes me, I tried really hard to do it, and it worked. The job I got is one that I never applied for. I don’t think it was ever even posted as a job. With the “network” mantra in mind, when I saw the name of a past collaborator on the participant list at a conference I made a point to meet up with him. We chatted about where he worked and I eventually mentioned

that I was on the job market. He said he didn’t think they were hiring, but he’d pass my resume along anyway just in case. A few days later I got an email from his boss, which led to a phone interview, then a site interview, and finally my job offer. They wanted someone with a very narrow expertise—which it turns out I happen to have. There was no job posted with the right keyword, and even if I knew the company existed (which I didn’t), it wasn’t obvious from their website that they needed this particular background. No amount of internet searching, job boards, or submitting online applications would have helped. I found this job because I talked with people — a lot of people, actually. I didn’t target this colleague because I hoped to get a job at his company: I was just putting myself out there, and he was one of the dozens of people I talked to. So yes, you should network, and network broadly, because you have no idea which contact will lead you to the job you’re looking for. 3. Keep an open mind This was a slow process for me. Even after the assessments helped me broaden the scope of career paths I was considering, I was initially still focused

on finding positions that seemed perfect. Over time I let my focus expand more and more. Yet after that first phone interview for the job I’ve accepted— which I’m very excited about—I was hesitant because I didn’t think it was a perfect fit. Although I liked what the company was doing overall, it seemed like my background and interests had a different twist. It’s possible I went so far as to say, “Well, it will be good practice to go through the interview, even if I’m not that interested.” So I went to the interview. They told me about the company, they asked me questions, they heard my presentation. Only after the interview was almost over and they had a good feel for me did they go into the details of what they want me to do, and I like it a lot. Maybe it’s one of my personal quirks or maybe it’s part of being a scientist, but I like to control the details. In a job search, that just doesn’t work. You control the big picture by knowing who you are and what’s important to you. Then you accept uncertainty. Talk to everyone, put yourself out there, and see what comes back. It may or may not be what you expect, but in time what you are looking for will find you.

Demystifying Business Casual Kylie Ainslie Graduate Student, Atlanta BEST Cohort 2

“Business casual” is a term used in a variety of settings from how to dress at the office to social events. But what constitutes business casual? There are

numerous definitions of the term, especially for women’s attire. Definitions of business casual vary depending on the industry, size of the company, amount of interaction between employees and customers, climate, and culture . For men, business casual generally means trousers or khakis with a collared shirt. However, some people think khakis are too informal to be considered business casual . For women, business casual is much more complicated, but the general consensus is neutral-colored, conservative clothing.

Left Image: from MariusBoatca, creative commons license

rofessional clothes aren’t typically found in a scientist’s closet, since lab attire should be comfortable and replaceable. However, when it is time to attend a conference or go to a job interview, what should you wear? Clothing that is appropriate for the lab is not appropriate for conferences or interviews. For occasions outside the laboratory, a good rule of thumb is to dress business casual.

It is very important to dress appropriately in the office, when meeting with a client, or at a work related function, such as a conference. Very intelligent, skilled, and qualified individuals can make a poor impression if they are not dressed appropriately. This article highlights some essential business casual attire as well as identify clothing that is not appropriate for a business casual dress code. However, due to the lack of consensus surrounding business casual, always ask for clarification from your employer about their definition of “business casual”.

Fundamentals of business casual For women • Colors: navy, gray, black, and tan (when in doubt, wear solid colors rather than patterns) • Dress pants • Blouses (brightly colored tops can be worn under a neutral blazer or sweater) • Fitted blazers or cardigans • Dresses or skirts that come to slightly above the knee • Closed toed shoes (preferably heels)

For men • Colors: navy, gray, black, and tan • Trousers, dress pants • Collared shirts • Knit shirt or sweater • Tie or seasonal sport coat • Loafers or dress shoes Despite the confusion surrounding what is business casual, there are very clear guidelines for clothing that is not business casual.

NOT business casual: • Shorts • Torn and/or faded jeans • Flip-flops and sandals • Athletic wear • Miniskirts and skirts more than a few inches above the knee • Halter, strapless, and spaghetti strap tops • Tops that reveal excessive cleavage

SPEED Resume Review Pilot Speed Resume Review This past January we partnered with the Georgia BioEd Institute to pilot a Speed Resume Review session. The BioEd institute, a division of Georgia Bio which is the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biotechnology and medtech trade organization, supports education and workforce development throughout the state of Georgia to strengthen the bioscience industry. Similar to speed networking, this Speed Resume Review Event was facilitated by local Human Resource representatives and recruiters who were doing the resume reviews and sharing personalized tips. Recruiters provided one-on-one feedback to BEST trainees then we came together as a group to share best practices in resume writing with advanced degree candidates. Recruiters were from Baxter, 22

Arbor Pharmaceuticals, Porex, Georgia Tech Research Cooperation, and Fulton County Schools. Recruiters were able to build a competitive pool of future applicants through the relationship with Emory and Georgia Tech. This event gave them the opportunity to share with the BEST trainees the hiring process and what they are looking for in an ideal candidate. Trainees practiced conveying transferable skills, learned to tailor resumes to companies and specific job postings, were exposed to local industries that are potential employers, and gained insight into what recruiters look for and value. Tamara Hutto Atlanta BEST Program Manager

Trainee Perspective As a graduate student who went directly into a PhD program from undergrad, this resume review was the first time I had to draft a resume. In order to get the most out of this review, I spent a lot of time deciding what to put on my resume and how to display it in the most professional, informative, and concise way. However, compiling my resume felt more like fumbling in the dark than outlining my best skills and experiences because there are so many ambiguities surrounding how to create the best resume. The resume review gave me the opportunity to discuss and receive feedback from multiple recruiters from diverse backgrounds to help clarify how to organize my resume and what to put on it. The most valuable feedback I received from both the reviewers I had the opportunity to speak with was how to highlight items on my resume outside of academia, such as volunteer work. I wasn’t sure if including non-academic or non-career focused experiences was relevant to a resume. However, the recruiter from Baxter saw my coaching experience and told

Georgia BioEd Institute This event was made possible by the leadership of Melissa Nikolic, the director of programming for the Georgia BioEd Institute. The mission of the Georgia BioEd Institute is to grow Georgia’s leadership in life science innovation through support of entrepreneurship, science education and life science career development. Partnering with local, world renowned research universities is positive for everyone involved including the state of Georgia, local industries, universities, and the students and postdoctoral scholars who are planning the next step in their careers. Nikolic explains, “the Georgia BioEd Institute works with post-secondary institutions to connect industry and academia in a variety of ways, including the Emerging Leaders Network and program develop-

me he loved it! He explained that coaching requires a set of transferable skills that are highly desirable in industry. He also helped illuminate how my academic experiences translated into transferable skills that industry recruiters, such as himself, look for. In addition to receiving personalized resume feedback from one-on-one discussions with the reviewers, the end of the session was open Q&A. This portion of the session gave everyone a chance to ask lingering questions and to hear from reviewers they did not have the chance to speak with. The open Q&A session was extremely helpful because many of my fellow trainees asked questions that I wouldn’t have thought to ask, but were excellent questions nonetheless. Overall, the resume review was extremely useful. It not only clarified the ambiguities surrounding creating and tailoring a resume, but was also an opportunity to network with professionals in careers outside of academia. Kylie Ainslie Graduate Student, Atlanta BEST Cohort 2

ment with industry feedback. Through such partnership with the Atlanta BEST program and our signature education programs, Teacher Training, Visiting Scientist and the newly launched Equipment Depot, the Georgia BioEd Institute is working to create a robust Bioscience Workforce Pipeline of engaged and skilled talent.” To learn more about the bioscience industry across the state and nation, take a look at the Coalition of State Bioscience Institutes (CSBI) 2014 Workforce Trends Report, another example of the work Nikolic and the Institute are making progress on. To learn more about the Georgia BioEd Institute, visit www.georgiabioed.org Melissa Nikolic Georgia BioEd Institute, Director of Programming