What I’ve Learned From the Other Side of the Hiring Desk

Getting ‘upgraded’ from post-doc to PI is a strange thing: one day you need someone else’s permission for almost everything, and always have someone to turn to. The very next, you’re suddenly in charge - responsible for drafting contracts, making decisions, and being the one everyone is looking up to.

For me, one of the most interesting things to experience since becoming a group leader is hiring. I’d advised on hiring previously - perused CVs, sat in on interviews and given advice to my own PIs - but when the entire process and decision lands at your feet, you suddenly see it through a new set of glasses.

I’ve now gone through two hiring rounds - and am about to prepare for a third! - and have now scanned through hundreds of applications, and conducted dozens of first and second round interviews. Through that process, I’ve gathered up some tidbits - things I perhaps hadn’t really seen the same way before I became the one ‘behind the desk.’ Hopefully it’s a list that will be useful!

Academia isn’t industry - craft your CV accordingly

Though I’ve never been in industry, my understanding is that there’s legitimacy in the ‘bulk application’ - applying for many positions with similar (or identical) applications. Academia isn’t industry. One of the biggest turn offs for me is a generic application: “I like science, I’ve done some science (insert experience that is not clearly relevant to the position I’ve advertised), please consider hiring me to do more science.” A PhD or post-doc position isn’t about doing rote tasks or filling a role - it’s taking on a project (or projects) to gain experience, learn new skills, and contribute to a larger research theme. From speaking to other PIs, I’ve yet to meet one who’d prefer a generic CV over one that’s at least made an effort to be specific to the position. Numbers may feel like the right gamble, but for academia, my guess would be your chances will be better sending off fewer, more specific applications, rather than 200 generic ones. This may vary by country and region, but I’d say it is true in Europe.

Craft your CV with specificity. LinkedIn makes it easy to generate a CV, but LinkedIn isn’t built for academia. I don’t really need five adjectives that describe your personality, I want to know what you did, who you did it with, what you produced, and where your enthusiasm lies. Academia reads CVs differently than industry, and a CV optimized for one reads as much less useful for the other. Seek out examples of academic CVs - ask your supervisor and/or group members for examples of CVs (here, older, pre-LinkedIn and pre-AI examples may actually do you better!).

Make your CV easy to scan. For a post-doc application, I want to see your PhD and any other previous post-doc experience at the top, then MSc and BSc. Importantly - do say both who you worked with (who was your supervisor) and what you worked on. Don’t just put the title of your PhD or programme, add 3-5 bullet points of what your work/project was about. Do this for each position and/or degree (for BSc feel free to focus on relevant classes and any project(s) you undertook) - it lets me fully understand what you’ve done.

If you’ve published or presented in a language other than English, please translate the title underneath the original - with hundreds of applications, I simply don’t have time to translate them all, so this information is lost.

Training and workshops are fine to include, but move them to the end and keep it tight. Odds are, I haven’t heard of most of them, and there’s no way for me to judge their quality, so I simply can’t read much into them. Do feel free to highlight or bold any that are particularly relevant for the job - for me, bioinformatics, evolution/phylogenetics, and programming skills! On the other hand, if something isn’t particularly relevant to the position you’re applying for, and you have an otherwise full CV, consider leaving it off - a long list of unrelated certificates doesn’t help pad your CV, it just makes it harder for me to find the most relevant information!

Career breaks are fine - but silence about them is odd

A gap in your CV isn’t disqualifying at all, and can even genuinely work in your favour - it shows resilience! But you do need to explain any gaps, and specifically, why you’re coming back now. What is the pull that’s bringing you back to research?

An example of this I’ve seen that came across as a real plus for the candidate was someone who left industry and then decided to return to academia. They described the experience as reinforcing their realization that research and academia was where their real interest lay - the tradeoffs they had to make in industry to meet the demands of fast deadlines and pleasing shareholders didn’t sit well with what they really cared about. This turned something that could have been perceived as a weakness (‘why don’t they have more academic experience?’) into a clear decision - and a strength!

Customize the cover letter - and double-check it!

Again, this is perhaps a difference between academia and industry, and matters increasingly more the ‘higher’ you’re applying - at post-doc level I’m definitely expecting this. The whole letter doesn’t have to be modified - bits about you, your experience, and your general motivations can often be re-used. But please - please - modify the cover letter for the position you’re applying for. The best thing you can do is paint the picture for me - what relevant experience do you have that’s perfect for this role? Why do your specific skills make you the ideal candidate? Tell me why you’re the candidate I should take to the next step!

However, please don’t copy-paste (or the AI equivalent) the job ad back at me. I wrote it - I know what it says. Do use it - explain how you fit into that picture - but don’t just quote it; it means you haven’t really engaged with it.

On the use of AI more generally: it’s fine to use ChatGPT or similar to help you organize your thoughts, tighten up wording, or figure out how best to highlight your skills and experience in relation to the job. But please don’t use it to write your CV or your cover letter. When reading a large pile of applications, it quickly became apparent which ones are straight from the mouth of AI. They are generic, they’re repetitive, and they have a habit of building up to a big-sounding conclusion that actually says nothing - strip away the flowery language and it comes out as “I am interested in studying pathogens because pathogens are important.” It’s not convincing, and it does you and your actual experience a disservice. So, make sure the ideas on the page, and the words that glue them together, are actually yours.

In the same vein, some of the best applications I’ve received are ones from people who’ve clearly thought about the project on a deeper level. Stating some ideas about how the stated project might move forward - how your skills could contribute in a specific direction, or how you or your work may fit in with my current collaborators, shows me that you’ve read more than just the job title, but actually done some research.

Don’t be afraid to get personal - but do keep it professional. One of the best things you can do is let your enthusiasm shine through - genuine interest and drive are some of the most valuable things in research, and always a strength. Of course, don’t get too casual - but don’t let strict formality stand in the way of showing your passion. Seeing that you really do want this position is going to stand out!

However, don’t just state your interest - show me. I’ve had applications that read something like, “After reviewing the job application and your impressive research, I found you to be attractive and the right employer for me.” I’m glad to hear it - but I also assumed you felt this way, since you applied for the position. Instead of simply restating the obvious, show me - what about the position makes you excited and why is it a perfect alignment with your interests and skills?

A note on partners and relocation

This is a bit more personal and a bit more nuanced, but I’ve seen it come up enough that I think it’s worth mentioning. At the CV and application stage, I’d leave information about your partner out. As someone who’s been in academia a long time, I’m very sympathetic to the ‘two-body problem,’ but if the first thing I learn about you is that ‘my partner works at your institute,’ or ‘my partner just moved to Basel,’ I have to wonder how much of the pull is the job, verses just the geography. I understand this can be read as a positive too - it signals willingness to relocate and/or stay - but it shouldn’t be the headline reason you want the position, and you shouldn’t let me wonder whether it is. Instead, save it for the first or second interview if you want to bring it up - at that point I’ve already learned more about your reasons for wanting the job, and can instead process this as a ‘nice bonus,’ rather than the main reason. I’d stick to this rule for any position where the terms (length, salary) are generally non-negotiable in academia, which normally applies to PhDs and post-docs. However…

I think this can flip once you’re applying for more senior roles where negotiation is part of the job application process. There, I’d be careful not to mention it (and advising your staff ro do the same, if they’ll be interviewed). If an institute knows that you’d likely take the job regardless of terms to be nearer to a partner, you’ve lost leverage - and some institutes may use that. Don’t hand them that ammunition!

Show me you’ve thought this through

Always re-read everything before you send it. Mistakes happen, and everyone’s human, but it’s pretty hard to ignore the very glaring ones: please get my name right, and please get the job right!

I’m not naive - and it was not so long ago that I was applying for similar positions myself - so I know applications get copy-pasted. I don’t expect every paragraph to be unique. But I do expect that you’ve re-read every application for typos, topic, and copy-paste errors before you sent it off, and I am expecting that you’ve made some edits specific to my lab, and the job I’ve advertised - at least if you want the best chance of success.

In closing

I know when stuck in the wash-rinse-repeat cycle of applications, these guidelines can hit hard. Rejection is difficult, no matter how many times it’s happened. And, with scientific funding being cut and competition for every position fierce, it’s tough to face up to the odds again and again.

And I myself can acknowledge that I often felt a bit lost when applying for jobs - I believed I did good work, I thought I’d probably be a good fit - but I struggled to know how to put this into words, or really dig into a sense of enthusiasm for a job I didn’t know if I might get. In my case, I probably got a bit lucky - people spotted something in me even when I might not have been conveying it as well as I might have - but leaving it to luck is risky.

So - paint a picture. Imagine you’re already in my lab, doing this job - what would you dive into first? What could your skills bring that we’re not doing? It shows that you’ve seriously considered the position, taken the time to do some research, and have the enthusiasm to think about what you could contribute.

Of course, even with all this advice - it’s never a guarantee. I’ve had beautiful, exciting applications, that simply weren’t a good fit - for example, people with extensive wet-lab experience and no programming interest, applying to my computational-only lab. And, at the end of the day, I can usually only hire one person - which means many great applications and well-qualified people will not make it this time!

Still, I hope this advice can be helpful, especially to those who may be putting in their first application, or first application for a new role (first post-doc after a PhD, for example). And I wish you luck!