On Imposters and Feeling Like You're 'Not Enough'

Here's a great little post from an awesome blogger, SciCurious, about the "Impostor Syndrome." In summary, it's the idea that we/people are really just 'faking it' when they succeed and/or only highlight their successes without openly admitting or talking of their failures. It can lead to a disastrous way of working and living in that some people never feel like they're doing enough or are 'good enough,' and are not deserving of their job/title/anything.

Sci highlights the need for a more transparent culture in science (especially in Academia), where flaws and failures are discussed as openly as successes and accolades. I agree in that it would be wonderful to be respected and commended for failing and trying again (and again, and again, and again...)-- not just for succeeding.

MadLabRat, PhC

Some wonderful news from the past week: I passed my Oral/General Exam!

This was a huge relief and a great feeling. I'm so happy it's over. I'm now officially a PhD Candidate. The last 4 years? I guess slave, underpaid worker, or plain old graduate student was the appropriate title. I celebrated with some good food, better friends, awesome Girlfriend, and some karaoke.

Fig. 1

As for the exam itself, it went well overall. I had prepared and practiced my presentation profusely, and I believe it paid off. I received several compliments on the layout of my data and project aims in its accessibility to the audience. Always a good thing to hear. Advice from this experience #1: A clear presentation (bullet points and plentiful images) allows you to successfully communicate your ideas to a broad audience and prevents confusion. This last point may seem obvious, but in academia, even the slightest bit of confusion may offend certain professors' sensibilities, resulting in angry ape-like behavior (see Fig. 1).

My committee was a bit more aggressive in  dwelling on certain aspects of my project, aspects I didn't expect to be the focus of discussion. That was another major take-away point for me here, and for anyone preparing for such an exam (where anything is fair game for the panel to ask/discuss)-- you really never know what points will flip the switch in certain people's minds and lead them to focus on something specific. This is why it's important to think carefully about how you say things, what you choose to say, and perhaps, to get to know your committee members a bit better before the exam. I am definitely guilty of not engaging them sooner in this process, but I'm not going to get into the reasons for that here.

Even though I felt I had some sort of answer or talking point about anything that was mentioned, in some ways, I felt I somehow came up a little short in my committee's eyes. I'm honestly unsure how accurate my personal assessment of this situation is, seeing as I did pass after all. But for me, if it's not A's across the board with a glowing record of achievement (which you don't often receive in grad school), it's obviously a failure. Maybe my best advice, then, is to steer clear of the PhD track if you're a perfectionist at heart.

I'm Tired and It's Only January 3rd

Happy new year! I hope 2012 is looking bright for everyone, I wish you all good things in the new year.

So far, 2012 is looking to be busy exciting. On the agenda: I have my General Exam scheduled for February 10th! I'm happy to finally have that on the calendar. I've met with each of my committee members individually and have mostly positive vibes coming from them, which is great. Something the whole process did make blatantly clear, however, is that I really should have started meeting with them a whole lot sooner (meaning at least a year before I did...). Outside input-- separate from your advisor-- has proven to be incredibly valuable for both my project and my psyche.

Sadly, for many of us in my program, engaging your committee in your project construction is this nice fairy-tale idea that is not actually encouraged. If anything, one gets the feeling that it's frowned upon until you have a clearer idea of your project.. more "preliminary" data... in my type of lab work, however, by the time you have this data, half your project is completed. Kind of negates the whole idea of having other bright minds contribute to the formation of your project and ability to give you feedback on your PROPOSAL... you know, prosed work? At this stage, it's no longer proposed; it's done. And there's really not a whole lot of time left to change your approach to address concerns from committee members. Perhaps we, as grad students, could be "more proactive," but it seems that even when students try to push, unless your PI is on board and supportive, it's futile.

Anyway, ranting aside, it's scheduled and I can't wait for it to be over! January is looking super busy with experiments and proposal writing/studying for the exam. SOT comes around again in mid March in San Francisco (woo!). The most exciting news: an abstract was accepted for a poster at an international conference in Paris in May!! I'm on a mission to find funding to support my travel, I'm optimistic that I'll finagle something. I've been aiming to go to an international conference, and this one is perfect-- it focuses on environmental stressors in the origins of disease. Plus, it's in Paris :) Wish me luck!

"Fearlessly ask stupid questions" - H. Stewart Parker

I've found a new woman to add to my "awesome women to admire" list.  (When I actually come up with that oficial list, I'll let you know). H. Stewart Parker, the founder and former CEO of Targeted Genetics, recently spoke a bit on "Targeting Biotech Success" in my class on biopharmaceutical product development. The class is awesome mostly because of all the really interesting and successful people from local biotechs etc. that come to lecture on the subject for the week. 

Parker is considered somewhat of a pioneer of the biotech industry since she rocked a start-up (Immunex) when the whole industry was really nothing but start-ups and Genetech (circa 1980). What I really liked about her was her demeanor and her work/life philosophy.  She has this eloquent southern accent which makes you feel like she's both about to sit you down to have a stern "come to Jesus meetin" and offer you some sweet tea and a seat in the shade. 

Some of what she talked about in her lecture revolved around what she called her "Genes for Success."  Some of the more notable genes include: the Unabashed gene, the fearless, the marathon, the fundraising, and fun-raising genes. Besides this being cute and clever, it was SO refreshing to see a) a successful women who really worked her way up from entry level to CEO in the industry and b) someone in that position of power who also values (and finds vital) personal sanity, emotion, and passion to their success in life. (Plus, "the marathon gene" is kind of essential in most aspects of life, especially in the endurance challenge that is grad school)

Besides advocating for asking 'stupid' questions, she adds that being "unabashedly optimistic, naive, and emotional" is essential to learning everything you need to know in order to move forward on a given task, and are all attributes she includes in her personal success story.

Why does this make me feel like danzig, you ask? Because, in my opinion, the culture of academia and a lot of Science/Industry/most jobs in general is one that does not look kindly on those who ask 'stupid' questions, lest you be admitting some sort of doubt in your work or intelligence (nevermind the fact that asking said questions usually leads to progress when searching for or understanding the answers). Because including emotion in your work is apparently one big "no-no," since letting yourself be affected by criticism about something you pour all your efforts into on a daily basis is somehow seen as weak or inappropriate.

It's just really nice to see someone who manages to balance those things. I'm getting better at thickening my skin (somewhat) and taking criticism in stride, but doing so while trying to maintain my inquisitive and often outspoken sense of self is not always easy. The degree to which one must keep an air of certainty at all times here in academia is really difficult for me to comprehend. To know that maybe it's not neccessary to do that ALL the time is reassuring.  Hats off to you, Stewart Parker.

"Caps for Sale: A Tale of a Peddler, Some Monkeys and Their Monkey Business is a 1938 classic children's book by Esphyr Slobodkina. It's a sly take on the saying, 'Monkey see, monkey do.'" -Wikipedia
 "And is awesome."- MadLabRat