March 2023
Leehyun Yoon / 윤이현
Hello! I’m currently a 4th-year international postdoc at UC Davis with a PhD from Korea University. I’m also an incoming Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Center for Vital Longevity at UT Dallas, starting from Jan 2024. I wanted to share my 2022-23 academic job market experiences in applying for tenure-track assistant professorship and open-rank positions in Psychology and Human Development. As there are already many blogs that provide excellent advice on the academic job search, I thought I’d focus on sharing my specific experience and the points that I found to be particularly important and challenging. I only applied to jobs in the US, and I applied after finishing three years in my postdoc.
Research fit was critical (but not always). I interviewed at 3 universities, all of which I eventually received an offer from (2 from R1 schools, 1 from liberal arts college). 2 out of 3 offers were from positions that I thought were a “perfect fit” in terms of the research area. The job descriptions of both of these positions were very specific and matched well with my research focus. Ultimately, I accepted a position from a university seeking a researcher who focuses on developmental cognitive neuroscience with a focus on adolescence, which is exactly my research area! Meanwhile, I also received another offer from a school that didn’t perfectly align with my research area. They were seeking a neuroimaging researcher who studies a particular disorder, which I will keep anonymous. I had no experience in studying this disorder, but in my application process, I explained how my skills and experience in developmental and clinical neuroscience can help better understand this disorder. As a side note, I received one offer from a school that was searching for a mid-career, established, and funded scholar (although they noted that they would also consider junior candidates with postdoctoral training). I didn’t expect any positive outcomes, but it eventually worked out. So, I think in my attempt to apply to many positions (including a position with a minimal research fit and an open-rank position), putting greater effort into the application for the “great-to-perfect fit” positions greatly enhanced my chances.
I started to receive interview invitations after adding a short biography section to my CV. After applying to half of my target positions, I added a short biography section on the first page of my CV following this advice (Thank you!!). Here, I introduced myself as a researcher (i.e., research topic and approach) and major achievements (e.g., publications at respected journals, successful international collaborations). I think the advantage of starting my CV with a biography was that I could somehow control how others perceived my experiences by framing my multi-year experiences in a preferred way and emphasizing the achievements that I wanted to highlight. Maybe it was just a coincidence, but I started to get interviews after adding this section!
I tailored cover letters for each school. In my cover letters, I included a paragraph explaining 3 ways I could uniquely contribute to the department, as well as 3 reasons why this university would be where I could thrive and successfully grow my research program. To do this, I studied faculty members’ research, undergraduate and graduate programs’ curricula, and facilities’ resources.
Writing down notes for my spontaneous research ideas helped form specific future directions in my research statement. During my postdoc, whenever I came up with an idea, I wrote the titles of future papers and projects I hoped to work on. These ideas popped up randomly – when I was walking, exercising, reading, or attending talks. Then, when I was writing my research statement, I selected the best five ideas and described them in the one-page future direction.
Writing about my experience with an unfunded (but discussed) grant application was helpful. My biggest concern when applying to positions in the US was my foreign PhD degree (although I’m super proud of my PhD lab and BA/PhD department!). I figured that a clear way to overcome this concern was to acquire a grant during my postdoc. I applied to the NIH K99/R00 pathway to independence award in my 3rd postdoc year. It was one of the most challenging (but extremely helpful!) tasks in my entire research career. It was a 100-page grant which required a lot of time and effort, and included support from many people (e.g., mentors, consultants, collaborators, and references). I submitted, got a score and reviews, resubmitted, and got an improved score. Although it didn’t reach a pay line, through this experience of a full cycle of NIH grant submission processes, I learned the structure of NIH grant applications and the review process/criteria. When applying to the positions, I mentioned in my cover letter and CV that I had experience submitting this grant and getting a score. Even though it was not funded, when I went to interviews, I realized that the search committee paid significant attention to this experience. I received questions about my proposal, and they gave me positive comments when I said I planned to apply for another grant based on the K99/R00 review immediately. Another plus was that I could answer specifically about what I would plan to do immediately after joining the department, as well as explaining my hypotheses because I had already written about them in my K99/R00 application.
Zoom interview questions were mostly within my expectations. I gathered expected zoom interview questions from several websites and blogs, and most of the questions during the zoom interviews aligned with my expectations. I wrote answers (3 sentences for each question) and practiced several times. I recorded my practice in zoom and noticed that I kept looking up when thinking about answers, which was not good. Thus, in my zoom interviews, I made sure always to look straight ahead.
Here are some questions that I received during the zoom interviews:
R1: Research trajectory, neuroimaging methods that I use, whether I use a particular method (e.g., machine learning), why I applied to this university/department, the aims of my K99 proposal, teaching experience, mentoring experience, the courses that I would like to teach, my approach to enhance DEI, hobby, whether I have any questions.
LAC: Research focus and research plan, experience working with undergraduate students, challenges I faced when working with undergraduate students and how I overcame, how many students I plan to recruit in my lab, how long I want students to work at my lab, strategies that I have used to engage students in a classroom, whether I have any questions.
Paying attention to what the search committee said during the zoom interviews helped me prepare for campus interviews. Right after the zoom interview, I immediately wrote down notes from the conversation. Through the zoom interviews, I was able to get a better understanding of the department’s needs they wished to fill through this hire, which naturally emerged during the conversation. I was also able to learn about the topic of grants that the search committee members submitted recently. Knowing about the department’s needs, the purpose of this hiring, and the research center’s current research interest was vital in aligning the potential collaboration section of my job talk with the department’s interests and needs.
One of the most challenging (but also exciting) parts of my job talk preparation was making a coherent story of my 8-year research. In the first part of my job talk, I introduced three of my studies. Selecting two of the papers was easy. First, one paper was from my PhD, which best demonstrates my research capacity and has novel theoretical implications. Another paper was from my first postdoc, which demonstrated my research skills I developed following my PhD. For another paper, I selected work from my second postdoc that related well with the two other papers. Creating a perfectly cohesive narrative was difficult, but I tried my best to connect the three studies naturally. Because there was a 45-minute time limit, I only presented one or two major findings per study.
Presenting an interesting real-world example helped promote engagement and soften the atmosphere. When I introduced my first study, I started by providing a real-world example. Because this study explored responses to accumulated performance-related social rejection, I asked the audience to imagine receiving multiple rejections on a manuscript or a grant. Particularly because it is highly relevant to academics, it engaged the audience, and I could start my talk with laugh and a comfortable atmosphere.
I spent five minutes presenting plans for my future lab. I explained the focus of my planned future lab (with a temporary lab name). I presented one broad research goal, three subgoals, as well as my anticipated approach to address these three subgoals. This was similar to writing the future direction section in my research statement (the list of ideas I recorded for the past years was helpful). But this time, I thought more about how to integrate these ideas into a broad theme.
I prepared potential collaboration ideas or research plans tailored to each position. As I learned about the departmental or research center’s needs through the job descriptions and zoom interviews, I made a list of potential collaborations relevant to each university’s interest. For example, the position I eventually accepted, was recruiting an adolescent brain researcher in a research center where most researchers focus on the aging brain and adult development. So, in my job talk, I proposed a project that adolescent and aging brain researchers can meaningfully collaborate on. While the “research plans for my new lab” section reflected accumulated thoughts across many years, this section required entirely new ideas. Therefore, it required a lot of thinking and some creativity within a short amount of time. However, I believe including this section significantly helped me convince my fit to the department and position. I felt my effort paid off when some faculty members said they wanted to collaborate on the suggested project after the talk!
The job talk Q&A was a very important part where my intellectual maturity was evaluated. I was the most nervous about job talk Q&A because it requires spontaneous thoughts following unexpected questions, while the job talk is just a presentation of what I had prepared. I found that the two things were helpful. First, I made a list of 30 expected questions and prepared answers to these questions. I knew for each talk, most questions would be unexpected, but some would be within my expectations. Moreover, preparing responses to expected questions helped train me to think fast and logically, which is essential to the Q&A. Second, I practiced the job talk Q&A in front of my mentors, one other faculty member, lab mates, and friends from other labs to get experience receiving questions from researchers from diverse sub-disciplines. These practice Q&As were particularly helpful in enhancing my confidence (which is super important for a real thing) as I learned that I could handle most of the questions (we don’t know before we try!). Some great advice I got regarding the Q&A is that, although it would be best to provide the answer that solves the question, it is okay to say relevant thoughts that come across my mind if it is not too stretched. I think faculty members don’t expect me to know everything and answer all questions accurately. Instead, they may want to evaluate breadth and depth of my knowledge and thoughts relevant to my research area. I also prepared some comments I could use when I couldn’t come up with any answers, such as “I have not considered that, but I’d be happy to look into that and get back to you with an answer.”
At first, I was a little nervous during the job talk Q&A at the first campus interview. But, as I received multiple exciting questions, relevant thoughts and knowledge came to my mind naturally. Particularly for one school, the Q&A session felt not evaluative at all. After listening to my responses, sometimes there were discussions that continued on among all faculty members and myself. It was a delightful academic discussion! For the last job talk Q&A, I slept 1 hour the day before the interview, and I didn’t perform well compared to the two other interviews. I needed really quick thinking to produce logical, thoughtful, and well-organized answers to unexpected questions, and sleep deprivation hampered it. Maybe this is why people recommend a good night’s sleep before the campus interview. Having the best conditions on the interview day would be particularly important for people whose default language is not English, like me.
30-minute 1:1 meetings with faculty were enjoyable. I expected a formal interview with 5 search committee members during the campus interview, but there was no such thing. The zoom interviews had a more formal atmosphere, whereas campus interviews were more casual and conversational. I had around 12 1:1 or 2:1 faculty meetings. About only 1/3 or 1/4 of the conversation was set aside for me to answer questions. For the remaining (and the majority of) time, they let me ask questions about the department and life as a faculty member at that university. Most faculty meetings were comfortable and easy, and the 30 minutes went very quickly.
Here are some questions that I received:
The key questions that the majority of faculty members asked: the reason why I applied to this position, introduction of my research, future research plan after joining the department, the classes that I want to teach
Other questions: In-depth follow-up questions after hearing about my research, a specific research design that I conceive for my future studies, a specific hypothesis of my future research, mentoring experience, my specific contribution to first-author papers, whom I expect to collaborate within the department, whether I can develop particular class (LAC), my signature teaching styles that distinguish me from others (LAC), specific plan to conduct research with undergraduate students (LAC), how my field has evolved across the past 10 years, additional knowledge/experience/skills that I gained during my postdoc, whether I practice open science
Here are some questions that I asked faculty members:
Past trajectories and future direction/vision of the department (asked department chair, dean, and director of a research center), what they most enjoy working here, how much proportion of time they spend for teaching, research, and service, their research, whether they collaborate with other faculty members, teaching load, tenure requirement, available mentoring for a new faculty member, internal seed grant opportunity, a funding mechanism for graduate students, questions about the city where the university is located
Some people recommend preparing collaborative project ideas for each faculty member, although I wasn’t able to do that due to a lack of time. I familiarized myself with each faculty member’s profile. In doing so, I made separate notes for each meeting on iPhone notes. I recorded each faculty member’s name, photo, research area, titles of recent articles, and questions I planned to ask each faculty member. I listed notes based on the order of meetings so that I could easily access notes for each person immediately before I met them.
Having some background knowledge and viewing their photos in advance made me feel more comfortable talking to them. For some faculty members with significant overlap in research interest with me, I asked questions about their articles and specific projects.
There was a meeting with students and postdocs. I had lunch with students and postdocs at each university. In these meetings, they asked about my research, plans, and what I would want to teach. Like the faculty meetings, most of the time was designated for me to ask them questions. I imagined my future as a mentor and asked myself what I would need to know to mentor students and postdocs. So, I tried to genuinely get to know each of the students/postdocs.
Here are some questions that I asked students/postdocs:
Research interest and current project, the procedure of PhD qualifying exam, course requirement, proportion of time they spend for TAing and research, new classes that they need, what recent graduates do currently
I also interviewed the department. During the interviews, I also evaluated each school in many dimensions (both consciously and subconsciously). For example, somethings that I made note of were whether I received in-depth and thought-provoking questions during job talk Q&A & 1:1 interviews, how faculty members interacted with each other, whether students effectively explained their research, and whether they asked me follow-up questions about my research (i.e., to see if they were motivated and curious). And last, whether it seemed to be a collaborative and intellectually stimulating environment overall.
A lesson from my job search experience is that the key is to have a clear and specific future plan. The more specific and clear it is, the more you will be positively evaluated I believe. Being in the job market pushed me to integrate random ideas and to think about my core interests and what I really wanted to do with my research. Particularly for campus interviews, I thought they wanted to understand my vision and potential as a researcher and educator (as opposed to my past performance).
To conclude, the job applications and interviews required a lot of preparation. However, after lots of preparation, the campus interview itself was very enjoyable! It was a great opportunity to build future collaboration with other researchers and to get to know new people who have explored a particular subject in depth.
I hope this post is helpful 😊
Acknowledgment: This post was thankfully proofread by my friend Ryan Hodge, a UC Davis Ph.D. candidate in the Human Development Graduate Group.