Reference letters Everyone needs at least three references, and they carry a lot of weight for getting jobs, scholarships and fellowships. Most students I meet don’t appear to have thought about this much, so I offer the following comments in case they are helpful. General The most obvious potential referees besides your supervisor, are be thesis committee members, professors you taken a course with, professors who attend common journal clubs or discussion groups, or collaborators. Try really hard to avoid having to use post-docs and research associates as referees as these references are heavily discounted. Referees notice when you show up asking for a reference a day or two before the deadline, without the necessary forms, a stamped envelope, details on who to write to, or what you are applying for, without a cv, or copies of your papers. How is the referee supposed to write you a good reference if you can’t get organized, and you don’t provide them with the materials they need? What is the referee going to think about you from the way you approach her? What are the standard things written about? You can get clues from looking at the referee forms for various fellowships. The obvious things are creativity, experimental ability, critical thinking, independence, productivity, general knowledge of science from reading and attending seminars, teaching ability, lab citizenship, industry, willingness to help others, and communication skills (written and oral). I always look for comments that make it clear that the student has drive, technical ability, and intellectual ability. I think that it is very rare for students to have all three and these are the ones that become PIs. Improving your references References mean more when it is obvious that the referee knows you. You should cultivate your potential referees. Talk to them about science, discuss their research with them, discuss your own research, talk about new work that excites you, or suggest experiments. Referees notice when people notice them. Everyone should be able to say what they are doing in a minute or so in a way that captures attention and excites interest and questions. If you can’t explain your work, or sound excited about it, or answer questions with knowledge and enthusiasm, then you can’t expect others to be interested. If you do this, then referees can talk about your enthusiasm, ability to ask good questions, and the ability to explain yourself, and broadness of your interests. Students underestimate the importance of committee meetings, journal clubs, lab presentations, and discussion groups as a way of showcasing abilities. People remember if your presentations are good (or not), if you ask penetrating questions (or not), if you know the literature (or not), or if you contribute to discussions (or not). Students also underestimate the importance of general life skills: punctuality, organization, diligence, persistence, neatness, ability to interact socially, helpfulness, and responsibility. Unsurprisingly, people notice all this stuff.
I frequently ask students in my lab to look at drafts of manuscripts or grants, usually with deadlines attached. You’d be stunned how many don’t bother replying, or miss the deadline, or just copy edit. What do you think I say about their critical thinking, diligence, punctuality and helpfulness? Similarly, I often ask students for data because I am giving a talk, or writing a grant, and you’d be amazed how many have to be reminded multiple times, or who hand it over minutes before the deadline. Similarly, I often give student manuscripts I have to review for journals and ask them “tell me what you think”. Most students don’t think anything, but this is another golden missed opportunity to showcase your abilities. One of life’s little secrets is that you look good if the boss looks good. The turning point in my own doctoral work was the time I got a new technique working, the result, and the slide made (the days long before powerpoint….) so that I could hand it to my boss when he went out the door on the way to an important talk he had to give. Before that point I was invisible. After that time I was given more and more responsibility. I was talking to an ex-student who told me that another postdoc in her current lab was being told what to do by the boss. This other post-doc asked the boss to tell him more about the project. The boss replied “It’s your job to tell me about your project”. Message: take charge of your own research. You are the one who can be thinking about it many hours a day, keeping up with the reading, and coming up with new ideas. If the boss knows more than you do about your project, there is something very badly wrong indeed, because the boss has to think about the many projects in the lab, teach, write, do administration etc, and can’t possibly be devoting as much time to your project as you are. Those who are just following instructions are going to get references that say so. One thing that surprises me is that students tend to compare themselves to the average students, not those students who come along only every 5 years or so. I was talking to a professor once about a student, and he replied to me “Look Hugh, only 1/10 students is any good”. So compare yourself to that 1 student out of ten, and not to the 9 who are mediocre. I’ve been told by many professors that they just use a form letter for references. The form letter starts off with a list of all desirable characteristics, and the ones missing are just crossed off. You’d be amazed at the number of references I read that essentially say “X is a nice person, and I enjoyed having them in the lab”. Michael Bishop’s (Nobel laureate) criteria for writing evaluations. Industry. How many hours does the scientist work? Are the hours regular or erratic? Does the scientist work consistently or in bursts? Productivity? Does the scientist structure time well so that the working time is used wisely? Are published data generated at above, below, or average rate? Accuracy. Is the experimental design such that the experiments are interpretible. Are the data reproducible? How much confidence can be placed in the data acquired by the scientist?
Creativity. Does the choice of research problem demonstrate creativity? Are creative solutions found to experimental problems? Is the scientist able to see when unexpected data best fit a new model? General knowledge of science. To what extent are seminars attended, listened to, and thought about? How deep and broad are the literature reading habits? Judgment. Are the assessments of data, papers, submitted manuscripts, seminars reasonable, overly critical or off the wall? Vision. Is thought given to where the field might be going, to possible innovations in the field, or to entirely new fields? Citizenship. Are lab responsibilities taken seriously? Is the work space kept tidy or a mess? Interpersonal relationships. Are interactions with colleagues supportive and positive? Is the personality stable or mercurial? Is the person sought out by colleagues when help is needed? Is the view of life optimistic or pessimistic? What are the ethical standards in dealing with colleagues and competitors? Independence. Does the scientist attempt to solve problems, attempt to understand the idiosyncrasies of the system, and have the wisdom to know when and how to get help as needed?”