Timeline for Publishing with Undergraduates
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2010 at 6:23 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | @Sleepless- The "postdoc-ification" of mathematics is a fascinating subject, and obviously one very important to many members of this board. It's something that still quite a bit in flux, but I don't think there's much doubt that it's necessary to get ahead as a research mathematician these days, as more and more people do it. | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 20:56 | comment | added | sleepless in beantown | @Ben Webster, thanks for the follow up comment. Mathematics is not usually in the "US News" rankings of universities either; I was just wondering what "authority" had generated the rankings. Post-doctoral studies seem to be a requisite for many fields, particularly the physical sciences and in medicine (where it's called residency for clinical training and fellowship for research training), but not engineering. I published a few papers as an undergrad (where I actually contributed a significant amount) which ended up in decent but not top tier journals. | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 19:17 | answer | added | Scott Taylor | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 19:09 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | @Sleepless- I think I was actually conflating the Carnegie classification with the AMS groups (used only for statistical purposes ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/groups_des) Groups I and II are roughly the 100 "best" (based on the '95 NRC ranking) doctoral granting programs in mathematics. It's probably an exaggeration to say none of these universities will hire someone without postdoctoral experience, but the vast majority of them aren't going to this year, given the number of people with postdoctoral experience looking for jobs. | |
| Sep 27, 2010 at 22:19 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | Andy is correct: there are a few undergraduates that get to publish mainstream research in mainstream journals (some of my favorite papers from the Monthly are UG research), but they're rare. To this, I'd like to add a very pragmatic consideration, which is that ethics dictate that you do not try to place the paper in the most prestigious journal possible, like you would with your own research. Your students' careers are at stake, they usually don't have a lot of time between submission and graduation, so you would aim for journals that can give you a quick answer. | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 20:50 | comment | added | Andy Putman | Continued. Of course, if an undergraduate proves a theorem good enough for a top journal, then their age won't stop them from publishing it there. I do know of a couple of examples of this (one undergrad with an Annals paper, and another with a JAMS paper and a Duke paper). However, these students are extremely rare. You are lucky if you teach one of them in your entire career (nb : I didn't teach either of the above people). | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 20:48 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @sleepless et al. It's not that undergraduate research is not publishable. Rather, it is rare for undergrads to work on problems that are of interest to the broad mathematical community, so most undergrad research is published in not particularly good journals. Indeed, for most people the first serious theorem they prove is their PhD thesis. This is different from the other sciences in which undergrads can work in a lab and get their name on a serious paper (with many other people). | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 18:19 | comment | added | David Jordan | @Thierry: I appreciate your point, thank you. I only mean to say that the OP does not explicitly make the assumption that the research is unpublishable, while it seems to be implicit in many answers. This mismatch of assumptions could be misleading; for instance if one has an interesting research project, which is actually relevant to one's program, and one can bring an undergrad in, I don't see any harm, and only benefit. Naturally, spending too much time on toy projects instead of more relevant research is not advisable... | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 15:09 | comment | added | Nikita | R1 and R2 refer to the old Carnegie classification of universities. See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_I_university | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 15:04 | comment | added | sleepless in beantown | Also as an aside, when a referee is reviewing a paper under consideration for publication, isn't it the content of the paper which is being reviewed rather than the academic education level thus-far attained by the authors? I would like to think that the merits of publication with undergraduates or with doctoral-level colleagues would be judged based upon the quality, impact factor, rigorousness of acceptance criteria, and "reputation" of the journal publishing the article. Shouldn't all authors contribute to the content and value of the paper? | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 14:57 | comment | added | sleepless in beantown | @Andy Putman, @Ben webster, what does R1 and R2 refer to and mean specifically? Is there an authority that compiles the list, or is it a "generally accepted" categorization? Wikipedia informs me that Thierry's REU refers to Research Experience for Undergraduates, but can shed no light on R1 & R2, beyond a lot of sports references... rankings? | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 13:08 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | @David: in most places, undergraduate research is first and foremost a form of education for the student, not about research. I've had only one serious foray in UG research so far, and it did lead to a paper, but the result was minor and my understanding is that even having a paper is far from typical. (It appears to be true even for REU's where students are carefully selected.) | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 13:01 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | @Andy: I don't know that I have a lot of experience with liberal art schools (less than 4 years). The key point I would make to our OP is to look ahead, but not too hard. I find myself spending a large amount of time doing things that I couldn't possibly have imagined when I was hired. In a small school, one should be able to figure out what will be valued, and that may be different for those who came in before you (small sample effect, plus you tend to want people who complement each other). I might need to revisit this opinion when I come up for tenure, though... ;-) | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 12:58 | comment | added | David Jordan | Wouldn't it depend most of all on the quality of the work, in an objective sense? I wouldn't imagine that having an undergraduate co-author could be any worse than having a colleague as a co-author (and would be distinctly better than having a superior as co-author), if the results were as interesting or important in either case. It seems natural to distinguish between mentoring/working with an undergraduate in a problem you (and other mathematicians) are genuinely interested in, versus a problem that's somehow off to the side, or not your main focus. | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 6:58 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | @Andy- Of course, if someone is looking tenure-track jobs just finishing a grad program, either they don't expect those jobs to be at R1 (or R2) or they have a big surprise coming, especially in a year like this, when lots of good people will be finishing postdocs, or trying to get out of second ones. | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 5:13 | comment | added | Andy Putman | @Thierry : Of course, you have a lot more experience with liberal arts schools than me! In reality, the last sentence of my answer is the whole reason I wrote it, and is advice I give anyone contemplating a job. In general, I think it is a good idea for someone envisioning themselves in a career path to choose some people further along in the same career and make sure that your cv is aligned with theirs (adjusted for time). | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 4:59 | comment | added | Thierry Zell | @Andy: I want to temper your answer about liberal arts schools. Everyone likes the idea of undergraduate research, but I cannot promise that administrators will value it equally (my original answer was written with the perspective of looking for a job rather than applying for tenure, since it seems this is what the OP is currently doing). Also, people who are thinking about directing UG research in a new job should be aware that opportunities to do so will vary from school to school. Students' other extra-curriculars have a knack of getting in your way. | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 3:57 | comment | added | Andy Putman | What will get you tenure varies at different institutions. A CV with mostly supervised undergrad work won't get you tenure at an R1, but it will be highly valued at a liberal arts school. Your goal should be to find a school whose mission aligns well with your values/talents. One way to get an idea of what is necessary for tenure at a specific institution is to go to the univ webpage and look at the CV's of mathematicians who have gotten tenure recently (or not so recently -- just cut off papers written after promotion, though many places have increased their requirements as time goes by). | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 2:51 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | "OK" for what purpose? You might really want to be more specific about what sort of schools you're interested in. | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 2:34 | answer | added | Thierry Zell | timeline score: 11 | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 2:21 | answer | added | JSE | timeline score: 7 | |
| Sep 22, 2010 at 2:10 | history | asked | Tom P | CC BY-SA 2.5 |