Hi guys, this is my first post in a long time, hope everyone is doing well. so I just finally settled down into my new town and am very anxious and excited to start classes, anways, I thought I would throw this out, what do you guys think is needed to get an academic position after grad school, I know many say that a postdoc is almost a requirement now, what's your feelings on this, and is it mostly just getting enough publications? and if so how many, my undergrad advisor told me 3-4, this doesnt really seem a lot to me, although i currently have none! So any thoughts would be appreciated, and this is more towards tenured-track postions, as opposed to lesser ones.

thanks!

I post this with this caveat up front: there are always exceptions to the rule.

But with that said, I was once told by a very influential individual that you need approx. 6 publications to be competitive for one of the top predoctoral internships. So the 3-4 estimate for a tenure track position is obviously low.

I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule about # of pubs, but obviously you'll want:

1. First-authored pubs in reputable journals, and a strong record of collaboration.

2. A coherent program of research - this will be especially important for the job talk. You'll want to present what you've done, why you've done it, and what you plan to do in the future. In other words, it has to flow and make some sense in terms of its trajectory. Having translational research, or a research focus that is "hot" will certainly help.

3. A record of extramural grant funding. This is often hard to do as a grad student/intern/postdoc, but there are mechanisms that you can pursue. For example, the NSF or NIH F31 grants will fund predoctoral research. Sometimes there's a request for applications (RFA) for dissertation research via the R03 mechanism. The NIH F32 will fund postodoctoral research, and when you're a postdoc you'll want to write at least one grant (i.e., R21, R34, R03, or K award). Finally, there are non-profit orgs that sometimes fund research (e.g., NARSAD). Basically, research I universities want to see that you can bring in the big bucks.

4. Depending upon the school, teaching record may or may not be important.

Finally, working with reputable people in your field will be important. Networking is key - psychology is a small community.

I think it's great to understand how these things work up front, but it's also important not to freak out too much about this stuff now. Things often fall into place as you go through graduate school.

Good luck! :D

ETA: I didn't directly answer your postdoc question b/c I think it's mainly a question of where you stand on the above items. If you're ready to go after internship, it can be done. But if you need to beef up in any of these areas, a postdoc is ideal because it provides the opportunity to do so.

CMU:

When I was asking about that I was told that it all depends on how much you produce while doing PhD, but they always recommend a postdoc for more experience. I was told though that continuing the PhD an extra year (my school offers funding for it) can be a good way to get more pubs done without the postdoc.

It's about having a systematic program of research (it helps if its fundable) that is revealed through your publications. The number of publications doesn't matter as much as their quality, your contribution to the research, and the potential for the future. I've seen faculty members hired into good departments with as few as 3-4 publications but they were viewed as the forerunners for a long-term research program. You should begin to demonstrate autonomy from your major professor in your publications and your research program should be one that will attract graduate students and grant dollars (but i already mentioned that).

I wanted to reiterate that those publications HAVE to be in reputable tier one journals

It's about having a systematic program of research (it helps if its fundable) that is revealed through your publications. The number of publications doesn't matter as much as their quality, your contribution to the research, and the potential for the future. I've seen faculty members hired into good departments with as few as 3-4 publications but they were viewed as the forerunners for a long-term research program. You should begin to demonstrate autonomy from your major professor in your publications and your research program should be one that will attract graduate students and grant dollars (but i already mentioned that).


do you think research in LGBT studies would suffice in bringing money and students?

do you think research in LGBT studies would suffice in bringing money and students?

That's a pretty narrow area. There is some potential for both funding and students but only a limited number of research oriented departments could/would support a faculty member whose research was limited to LGBT topics.

do you think research in LGBT studies would suffice in bringing money and students?


Yes, it would. In response to Drydoc's comment, a narrow research focus is a good thing, not a bad thing and LGBT studies is not a narrow research focus. It isn't a research focus at all. It's a population. There are many, many directions one could go with that (e.g., genetics, psychosocial adaption, regional differences in self-esteem and financial success, familial responses and adaptation, homophobia and how it changes with exposure to LGB populations, LGB and religion, etc. . .).

One thing to keep in mind is that the current political climate is not that amenable to doing research in LGBT issues. At one point in the past 2 years or so, there were people in congress who were planning to go through the NIH portfolio, study by study, with the goal of revoking funding to studies of "sexuality" (among other topics). Although I strongly disagree with this move on several levels, and it ultimately did not come to pass, it has left several people in the research community very wary.

With that said, I don't think that such events should necessarily direct your choice of a research focus. In some ways, because of the current political climate, I think that research in these areas should be MORE active so that we can inform the public through science. Also, politics change over time - what might present as an obstacle now may not in 3 years (please, let it be so!). But mostly, I think that you should study what interests you and what you feel passionate about. Otherwise, there's a strong risk of burn-out. However, it's also important to be fully aware of the path you are choosing so that there are no surprises down the road!

Just my opinion...