this afternoon i sat down and thought about what kind of person i seem to be, based on what's on paper and what's available online [1].
online. the good news is that i don't seem to be a degenerate, and it looks pretty professional, with a few personal tidbits .. like road race times and a few bits of photography (allowed public).
the annoying thing is that my papers, what few of them, are scattered on both google and bing searches. this is particularly annoying, since even fewer of them show up on mathscinet.
underlying this, i realise that i'm not very prolific, so every little part counts .. /-:
paper. i browsed through my teaching and research statements and my vita today, and i cringed .. but at no one particular thing.
most of all, it's the research statement. the beginning is a good effort, but then it gets technical .. too technical. i wonder if anyone took the trouble to read it, because it's .. bloody technical.
it suffers from the same problem that i exhibit, while preparing and giving talks: i'm always worried that nobody has any idea of what i'm talking about [2]. it's one thing to be amongst colleagues; it's just that i've been given a lot of blank looks in my time ..
[0] L: if you know a way to invite jeηna to guest-blog, then let me know. otherwise these poor web-roamers deserve, at least, to be ferried quickly away from a mathematical minefield. q-:
[1] this isn't just an intellectual exercise in self-analysis. tomorrow is a phone interview, you see ..!
[2] maybe it's inevitable that we mathematicians just work on abstruse things. i don't ever expect anyone to appreciate the gory details of my proofs. on the other hand, i envy certain people ..such as those working on PDE.. because they don't need to spend a page or more explaining that their field actually exists ..!
online. the good news is that i don't seem to be a degenerate, and it looks pretty professional, with a few personal tidbits .. like road race times and a few bits of photography (allowed public).
the annoying thing is that my papers, what few of them, are scattered on both google and bing searches. this is particularly annoying, since even fewer of them show up on mathscinet.
underlying this, i realise that i'm not very prolific, so every little part counts .. /-:
paper. i browsed through my teaching and research statements and my vita today, and i cringed .. but at no one particular thing.
most of all, it's the research statement. the beginning is a good effort, but then it gets technical .. too technical. i wonder if anyone took the trouble to read it, because it's .. bloody technical.
it suffers from the same problem that i exhibit, while preparing and giving talks: i'm always worried that nobody has any idea of what i'm talking about [2]. it's one thing to be amongst colleagues; it's just that i've been given a lot of blank looks in my time ..
[0] L: if you know a way to invite jeηna to guest-blog, then let me know. otherwise these poor web-roamers deserve, at least, to be ferried quickly away from a mathematical minefield. q-:
[1] this isn't just an intellectual exercise in self-analysis. tomorrow is a phone interview, you see ..!
[2] maybe it's inevitable that we mathematicians just work on abstruse things. i don't ever expect anyone to appreciate the gory details of my proofs. on the other hand, i envy certain people ..such as those working on PDE.. because they don't need to spend a page or more explaining that their field actually exists ..!
2 comments:
She has a contact form:
http://theoveranalyst.net/contact
Presumably she will reply by email, if she agrees to the idea. The rest is easy: Settings->Permissions->Add Authors. You can have up to 100 authors.
Post a Comment