1
00:00:17,960 --> 00:00:22,680
[Auto-generated transcript. Edits may have been applied for clarity.]
Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of Immunity by Design,

2
00:00:23,120 --> 00:00:33,680
where we discuss human and machine intelligence and how new breakthroughs in digital information and technology are reshaping the way we do science,

3
00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:39,280
and what all of this means for our scientific careers.

4
00:00:40,200 --> 00:00:45,320
My name is Hashim Chui and I'm delighted to be hosting this series.

5
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:57,680
The focus of today's episode is scientific career development, and in particular, what defines an outstanding job application in the age of AI.

6
00:00:58,880 --> 00:01:06,080
And for that I am very delighted to be joined with two hugely experienced panel members, Professor and Gary Lee,

7
00:01:06,280 --> 00:01:11,680
Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, with a huge experience in equality,

8
00:01:12,400 --> 00:01:17,480
diversity and inclusion within the Radcliffe Department of Medicine.

9
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:28,720
And also Doctor Elisa Kalsi, a senior researcher with a huge experience in industry, biopharma and biotech sector.

10
00:01:30,920 --> 00:01:34,040
Anand Eliezer, thank you so much for joining us.

11
00:01:34,240 --> 00:01:44,960
It's a delight to have you on board. It's a pleasure. And for today, there are four teams that I really would like to be able to cover to start with.

12
00:01:45,360 --> 00:01:50,840
We will be looking into what defines an outstanding scientific job application.

13
00:01:51,720 --> 00:01:59,950
Then we will be looking into what happens behind the closed doors during selection or shortlisting processes.

14
00:02:00,950 --> 00:02:05,950
And of course, AI, whether it can be considered a friend or foe.

15
00:02:06,830 --> 00:02:10,470
When it comes to preparing job applications and the very final one,

16
00:02:11,030 --> 00:02:17,750
the concluding remarks or what an early career researcher can take from this conversation.

17
00:02:18,830 --> 00:02:22,190
And of course, we want this discussion to be an open discussion.

18
00:02:22,710 --> 00:02:29,030
So please, if you have any question, either raise your hand, preferably at the end of each team,

19
00:02:29,430 --> 00:02:37,230
or please write your questions in the chat box and I will try my best to read as many as them that time permits.

20
00:02:38,270 --> 00:02:43,030
So perhaps we can start by knowing the panel more. And I would like to start with you.

21
00:02:43,190 --> 00:02:49,510
So could you please tell us a little bit more about your current role and more importantly,

22
00:02:50,350 --> 00:02:56,630
relevant to today's discussion about your experience on setting different selection

23
00:02:57,190 --> 00:03:03,590
panels and serving as a interviewer or shortlisting duties that you have done.

24
00:03:04,510 --> 00:03:08,990
Yes, of course, thanks very much. I am a professor of human genetics at the University of Oxford.

25
00:03:09,510 --> 00:03:15,430
As Hashem has told you, and in that capacity actually have been in the University of Oxford for the last 30 years or so.

26
00:03:15,590 --> 00:03:19,750
In that capacity, I've been recruiting quite a lot of people for the lab.

27
00:03:20,150 --> 00:03:27,710
We run a research lab, but also have been sitting on most of the panel for the last ten years or so of recruiting PhD students into the programme.

28
00:03:28,710 --> 00:03:35,710
And I also sit on quite a few grand review panels, including the Wellcome Trust, as well as internal panel here in Oxford.

29
00:03:36,750 --> 00:03:39,990
And beside that, I'm also a mother of two young adults.

30
00:03:40,550 --> 00:03:42,430
And in terms of recruitment or job application,

31
00:03:43,070 --> 00:03:50,910
it is something that I actually have updated my skills through my children by being able to see how things have evolved and change over time,

32
00:03:51,310 --> 00:03:55,660
and what is it that people are looking for? How do they present themselves? What is it that is desirable?

33
00:03:56,620 --> 00:03:59,740
So I think today I may reflect on that as well, because things have changed.

34
00:04:00,180 --> 00:04:05,500
And so asking people who've been in a system for a very long time is not necessarily something that is always useful.

35
00:04:05,940 --> 00:04:11,660
So it's very important to listen to your parents. But sometimes there are other people who may know better.

36
00:04:12,100 --> 00:04:14,780
That's what I want to say. I think that's probably defined.

37
00:04:15,180 --> 00:04:18,660
The other thing I might say as well is I've been working across quite a few different countries,

38
00:04:19,180 --> 00:04:24,300
including Belgium, the US, Spain and the UK now for quite a long time.

39
00:04:24,540 --> 00:04:28,380
So this also gives me different perspective. Different places ask you for different skills.

40
00:04:30,340 --> 00:04:36,220
Excellent. Thank you so much. And that's a really great different combination and different perspectives that you offered for today.

41
00:04:36,900 --> 00:04:40,700
Is that the same question for you please. Nice to meet you all.

42
00:04:41,020 --> 00:04:49,340
Great to be here. I am Doctor Elisa Rosati and I am now a scientific lead in a small Start-Up world technology company.

43
00:04:49,820 --> 00:04:57,540
But in the past years, I have to say, I went through different stages where I was responsible for selecting candidates,

44
00:04:58,220 --> 00:05:02,060
starting from PhD students and master's students when I was at the university.

45
00:05:02,660 --> 00:05:06,980
During my different postdocs and then afterwards in different companies.

46
00:05:07,540 --> 00:05:11,820
So I've now worked in three different companies across very different company sites.

47
00:05:12,380 --> 00:05:17,140
So from Start-Up to corporate in GSK with over 70,000 employees.

48
00:05:17,900 --> 00:05:25,380
And this on one side made me see how to select personnel or the selecting of personnel works in different realities.

49
00:05:26,340 --> 00:05:32,820
And on the other side, because actually I changed employment several times in the past ten years,

50
00:05:33,220 --> 00:05:45,820
I experienced myself how the market changed over ten years and how it evolved, and how different it was to look for a job in different times.

51
00:05:48,380 --> 00:05:56,970
Excellent. Very nice. So as the first of a transition question to theme one, based on all this experience that you have in your baskets,

52
00:05:58,050 --> 00:06:09,570
if you had to identify just one factor that most often surprise successful candidates from the rest or from unsuccessful ones, what would it be?

53
00:06:11,410 --> 00:06:17,210
For me, it's originality. When I read a letter of application, typically the very they should be short 500 words.

54
00:06:18,050 --> 00:06:23,410
I need to feel that the candidate is talking to me and he's applying, and he's talking about the job they're applying for.

55
00:06:23,930 --> 00:06:27,650
And I think that is one of the things that can be a real shortfall.

56
00:06:28,290 --> 00:06:35,290
I don't need another rendition of a CV. I don't need to tell me that they want to cure the problem of humanity.

57
00:06:36,570 --> 00:06:40,850
I want to have a dialogue. And within that dialogue I'm looking for certain things.

58
00:06:41,130 --> 00:06:46,530
But that's the first thing that would capture my attention is if I feel that it is a personal statement

59
00:06:47,130 --> 00:06:52,850
with the attention to the word personal that is targeted to specifically the role they are applying for.

60
00:06:53,610 --> 00:06:57,530
And that is, to me is the key aspect that will capture my attention.

61
00:06:58,130 --> 00:07:03,730
And then I will start looking at it with different eyes, like you, Aliza.

62
00:07:04,850 --> 00:07:10,650
So for me, if I have to select one thing, the first one will be clarity and readability in the application.

63
00:07:11,410 --> 00:07:15,610
Because actually that if an application is not readable because, for example,

64
00:07:16,370 --> 00:07:22,490
it happens a CV to be too full, then if everything is written, it's like nothing is written.

65
00:07:23,050 --> 00:07:31,650
So if something is not clearly readable, that's the first thing that really in a screening of several application, I would say it's a big weakness.

66
00:07:32,210 --> 00:07:40,130
But beyond that, I agree on the originality as an asset and on the tailoring of the application to the specific position.

67
00:07:41,170 --> 00:07:46,280
I think it's a pretty classic statement that the application needs to be tailored to the specific position.

68
00:07:47,760 --> 00:07:52,240
But it's not always the case. So the usage of keywords important for the position.

69
00:07:52,920 --> 00:08:00,800
It's something that makes me stop on a certain application more time and give it time to go further compared to the first screening.

70
00:08:01,760 --> 00:08:13,160
And the last thing I want to add is the fact when I read an application to don't under or oversell one own experience and skills,

71
00:08:14,080 --> 00:08:16,960
because depending on the seniority, that's something that happens pretty often.

72
00:08:17,520 --> 00:08:21,520
And I like people to be honest on what they know and what they don't know.

73
00:08:23,160 --> 00:08:26,680
And that's something that is important to me. Excellent. Thank you so much.

74
00:08:26,840 --> 00:08:34,000
Thank you both for identifying one. And obviously, you both alluded to some other factors that play a role.

75
00:08:34,280 --> 00:08:41,360
And that brings me to the next question. Because usually there are different factors that make the job application to a stand out.

76
00:08:42,000 --> 00:08:51,640
So the question is that collectively, what characteristic consistently distinguishes the strongest application from the pool of applications?

77
00:08:52,720 --> 00:08:57,120
Perhaps. Elisa, we can start with you this time. Which I should repeat what I said before about the debility.

78
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:04,600
So I would say when multiple applications are very similar to one another and then you have a big pool.

79
00:09:05,360 --> 00:09:11,400
Indeed, it goes more to what in the cover letter I would say the distinctions rather than in the CV,

80
00:09:12,000 --> 00:09:16,920
because there it's really where you try to see the personality of the applicant.

81
00:09:18,080 --> 00:09:22,120
So if I need to choose among a bulk of different applications,

82
00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:30,160
I would look at that and not only at the content but also on how curated was the application.

83
00:09:31,800 --> 00:09:35,280
This said, I must say that in my experience personally,

84
00:09:35,880 --> 00:09:41,640
different screeners a manager do not necessarily look at the same things when they look in applications.

85
00:09:42,120 --> 00:09:49,830
So there are some general rules, but some people, for example, are more careful to the format and the layout, and some people are less so.

86
00:09:50,710 --> 00:09:59,270
That's also a little bit a matter of luck. I would say on the other side, I think you cannot do wrong if you create the aspect of your application,

87
00:09:59,790 --> 00:10:03,030
because that's the first thing that people see and then they go to the content.

88
00:10:07,070 --> 00:10:10,870
So I would frame it slightly differently just to put this in a slightly different context.

89
00:10:11,430 --> 00:10:15,190
I see that an application that is outstanding, a little bit like speed dating.

90
00:10:15,790 --> 00:10:21,510
What is it that in the first few minutes is going to capture your attention? For some people it's going to be the outside look okay.

91
00:10:22,110 --> 00:10:24,990
For other people, it's going to be the first sentence how they introduce themselves.

92
00:10:25,710 --> 00:10:30,830
And for others it is going to be this that makes you I'm interested in this.

93
00:10:31,550 --> 00:10:37,790
And so that's essentially what you need to try to capture. How are you in a situation where you're competing with a huge pool of people,

94
00:10:38,630 --> 00:10:45,350
attract attention in speed dating so that at the end of the day, people will put you number one on that speed dating card.

95
00:10:45,950 --> 00:10:47,510
And I think to me that's exactly that.

96
00:10:47,710 --> 00:10:54,510
There isn't one formula, but it is the sum of all of these things, which is exactly what Elisa tells you, is that at the end,

97
00:10:54,670 --> 00:11:01,510
people will look for different things, people for some affinity for some things that match the expectation, whatever this may be.

98
00:11:02,030 --> 00:11:06,950
But it is very much like speed dating. How do you give a good impression at the first so that people stop,

99
00:11:07,550 --> 00:11:13,550
take the time to explore more so that at the end of the day, they may be interested to invite you on a second date.

100
00:11:13,910 --> 00:11:16,390
And that's really where you need to try to put yourself.

101
00:11:16,750 --> 00:11:21,590
So understanding where you're applying, who you're applying to, who you're talking to is essential.

102
00:11:22,270 --> 00:11:27,590
So it's this combination of the first impression need to be outstanding, full stop.

103
00:11:27,830 --> 00:11:34,350
You need to just tick the right box, be attractive, be a bit mysterious, but something that you want to know more about the candidate.

104
00:11:35,190 --> 00:11:40,460
This would be a lot of factor in academia that is very specific because of course we're looking for people that we can train.

105
00:11:40,860 --> 00:11:44,860
Typically we can work with on a day to day basis. So these are very specific factors.

106
00:11:45,660 --> 00:11:48,940
But that first the outstanding application all have this in common.

107
00:11:49,620 --> 00:11:53,460
It's just they just prompt you to want to know more. Sure.

108
00:11:53,940 --> 00:11:57,380
And this the speed dating analogy is actually a great one.

109
00:11:57,820 --> 00:12:06,900
But one difference perhaps we should note here is that in the dating, usually the person who selects is one person, but here usually there is a panel.

110
00:12:07,420 --> 00:12:13,020
What are the key characteristics that most of the time comes up in a panel, not just one person?

111
00:12:14,260 --> 00:12:21,140
And maybe one thing to add sorry, I let you speak. I just want to add on what Anna said before about the originality actually,

112
00:12:21,980 --> 00:12:25,860
that the originality makes you stand up, but it needs to be a balanced originality.

113
00:12:26,580 --> 00:12:33,140
So you need to want to know more. It's too original, then it becomes strange and that's also not okay.

114
00:12:33,780 --> 00:12:39,220
So you need to find somehow the right balance between knowing the rules of how an application should look like,

115
00:12:39,860 --> 00:12:44,220
and twisting it with your own style that becomes recognisable.

116
00:12:45,180 --> 00:12:48,620
Sorry, and go on with it. It's exactly the point I was going to make.

117
00:12:49,340 --> 00:12:53,660
The key thing is to understand the rules of what you are applying for.

118
00:12:53,860 --> 00:12:59,380
So you need to understand the rules of the game. You need to show you understand the rule of the game, otherwise you never fit in.

119
00:12:59,980 --> 00:13:06,700
So but at the same time, you need to have this little element of surprise of oh, I hadn't thought about that.

120
00:13:06,900 --> 00:13:12,380
That looks interesting. So typically when I have this pile of application, I say I literally stopped and think,

121
00:13:12,620 --> 00:13:15,940
oh, this looks different, but it needs to be different for the right reason.

122
00:13:16,460 --> 00:13:17,740
And Alyssa is absolutely right.

123
00:13:18,020 --> 00:13:23,860
First, I need to check that they have understand the boundaries in which they are operating, because otherwise it's a non-starter.

124
00:13:24,740 --> 00:13:29,580
And then I want to have this add on, not this abstraction. And so that is really important.

125
00:13:30,020 --> 00:13:33,100
So the form and then if it's right it needs to be a certain format.

126
00:13:33,500 --> 00:13:39,730
There is a certain aspect that you need to understand the milieu and the expectation of you.

127
00:13:39,930 --> 00:13:44,810
If you don't, it's not a good recipe for success. Thank you both.

128
00:13:45,250 --> 00:13:48,690
So moving to the next question, which is very related to this.

129
00:13:50,090 --> 00:13:56,050
Conversely, what are the common mistakes that can, we can and otherwise a strong application?

130
00:13:58,490 --> 00:14:02,730
Oh, there are so many I wouldn't know where to start. One of them is personal experiences.

131
00:14:03,570 --> 00:14:08,170
Yeah. Some one to the first line is just they haven't changed the name of the doctor.

132
00:14:08,570 --> 00:14:14,370
They applied the line. It's much more common than when you would think people who are processing these things.

133
00:14:15,250 --> 00:14:21,650
The other one is having a ChatGPT rendition of my website. It's very well written, I know I wrote it.

134
00:14:22,890 --> 00:14:32,450
That is really not helpful. It sounds authoritative. The person it is again about addressing the person that you know is reading it.

135
00:14:32,970 --> 00:14:38,850
If I know I have written it, it might just encourage my ego for a little bit, but that's all it does.

136
00:14:39,090 --> 00:14:42,570
It does not interest me in the person. Then the other one is this. This really?

137
00:14:43,010 --> 00:14:47,330
I don't think it's really something you would want to do being full of spelling mistakes, typos.

138
00:14:48,370 --> 00:14:55,050
It's the lack of attention to detail. It's also something that puts some red flags and an application that are too personal,

139
00:14:55,890 --> 00:14:59,290
that just tells you all the reasons for which they have said this and that.

140
00:14:59,930 --> 00:15:03,410
It's a little bit overbearing. And again, it is about understanding the rules of the game.

141
00:15:04,330 --> 00:15:08,690
So this would be all little red flags that would just come up very quickly and just make me put them.

142
00:15:08,930 --> 00:15:14,490
They put aside that I don't want to go further. I think this will be problematic and I may be wrong with that assumption.

143
00:15:15,570 --> 00:15:20,010
But again, it is about the first impression to me.

144
00:15:20,770 --> 00:15:24,810
One of the most common errors is the length of the applications.

145
00:15:25,730 --> 00:15:28,970
I received several CV's that were like eight pages.

146
00:15:30,210 --> 00:15:31,640
Sometimes that's normal in academia.

147
00:15:32,200 --> 00:15:39,400
Actually, in companies is a totally no go, because people very often feel they need to write really everything about themselves.

148
00:15:40,360 --> 00:15:44,000
But in applications, sometimes less is more.

149
00:15:44,880 --> 00:15:49,840
So showing the capacity to summarise, to be concise, to highlight the right things.

150
00:15:50,840 --> 00:15:58,320
I think that's very important. It's also true for cover letters. Cover letters are depending on the position one maximum two pages already very long.

151
00:15:59,200 --> 00:16:03,960
So the capacity of selecting properly the content of the CV tailored for the application.

152
00:16:04,680 --> 00:16:09,160
It's one of the mistakes that I saw more often in in applications.

153
00:16:10,880 --> 00:16:14,520
I think this is a good point, Alyssa, and it's one of the reasons that over the last few years,

154
00:16:14,760 --> 00:16:18,680
we've implemented for the DPhil application, a maximum of 500 words for the application.

155
00:16:19,480 --> 00:16:27,320
And so this is really what you choose to say and what you think is important to you, rather than than a memoir of your life or biography.

156
00:16:28,240 --> 00:16:31,200
And that is deliberate choice, the same way that, you know,

157
00:16:31,360 --> 00:16:35,760
a lot of grants will tell you that you have a two page CV and that's it, and you choose what you put in.

158
00:16:36,160 --> 00:16:42,200
So it is really about providing the information. The other catch is that you don't provide the information that is essential.

159
00:16:43,040 --> 00:16:47,640
And this goes back to the fact that you need to know what is expected of you and understand the framework in which you operate.

160
00:16:48,080 --> 00:16:56,520
So that is also a test. If you don't tell me you've done something, there is no reason for me to know about it before moving to the next question.

161
00:16:57,000 --> 00:17:04,040
And I have a follow up question a number of times. You said it's important to know the rules of the game, of course, for postdocs.

162
00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:08,760
And the more senior become, we actually happen to know the rules of the game better.

163
00:17:09,080 --> 00:17:14,120
But for example, for PhD candidates, those apply for fully funded PhD students.

164
00:17:15,600 --> 00:17:19,160
It's very hard to know for them to know the rules of the game.

165
00:17:19,440 --> 00:17:24,000
So any advice for them, where to start or how to learn these rules?

166
00:17:24,920 --> 00:17:29,910
I think they should listen to your podcast. Joke about. I think there are ways of reaching out.

167
00:17:30,230 --> 00:17:33,350
There are ways of talking to people who have experienced this.

168
00:17:34,150 --> 00:17:36,430
These days, it's really not that difficult to have this conversation.

169
00:17:37,150 --> 00:17:43,230
There are loads of resources and I know it can be very difficult and daunting to know what the resources are.

170
00:17:43,470 --> 00:17:47,830
But the first thing is try to do your homework. Try to learn as much as you can.

171
00:17:48,070 --> 00:17:50,150
And as of course, it's easier to talk to people.

172
00:17:50,830 --> 00:17:56,030
But I think the mistake these days is really that you think you can do a thing at the push of a button,

173
00:17:56,390 --> 00:18:01,350
and people tend to get lazy without even considering whether this is the right place for them.

174
00:18:01,590 --> 00:18:10,350
So I see this as a part of a much bigger way of growing up, understanding the the world that we inhabit and what is it that it may represent.

175
00:18:10,830 --> 00:18:15,710
And I know people dream of coming to Oxford. There is this romantic idea of being in a big university.

176
00:18:16,550 --> 00:18:17,550
The reality is very different,

177
00:18:18,190 --> 00:18:24,190
and that comes from talking to people trying to have access to look at some videos of people talking about these things.

178
00:18:24,390 --> 00:18:28,750
So the resources are day. It's not always easy to find, I totally agree.

179
00:18:29,190 --> 00:18:34,070
But one key thing. For example, if you want to do a DPhil in Oxford, you don't do it even in Oxford.

180
00:18:34,630 --> 00:18:39,590
You do a DPhil in somebody's lab within a specific department within Oxford.

181
00:18:40,190 --> 00:18:44,550
So the first thing is, before you write, get in touch with them, have a dialogue with them.

182
00:18:45,550 --> 00:18:50,150
Ask them whether what are the expectations. This is the key thing that you need to do.

183
00:18:50,590 --> 00:18:53,030
And I think these are the unfortunately people take too many shortcuts.

184
00:18:53,550 --> 00:19:00,230
Thinking that sending ten application, which are very wide ranging, will be better than one that is highly focussed.

185
00:19:00,910 --> 00:19:03,110
These are different strategies. I don't know this.

186
00:19:03,350 --> 00:19:09,910
They what works better, but in my opinion, especially with AI these days, you were much better to talk to a human.

187
00:19:12,270 --> 00:19:18,510
It's actually very true that talking to people and reaching out is one of the best ways, and it is both in academia and in industry,

188
00:19:18,990 --> 00:19:24,980
and is actually much easier in academia where you can actually, you know, the people that you are applying to in the lab while in industry.

189
00:19:25,380 --> 00:19:30,820
Sometimes you just speak with a recruitment page and you don't know who the manager is, so you cannot reach out.

190
00:19:31,500 --> 00:19:35,220
But in academia, so beyond just the easy the standard.

191
00:19:35,660 --> 00:19:40,380
Go on Google and ask how does an application for a PhD in Oxford look like?

192
00:19:40,700 --> 00:19:44,420
And you just start studying applications and see. Okay, this is interesting.

193
00:19:44,860 --> 00:19:48,700
I can take it. I like how this is done. Maybe I use it in mine. That's the standard.

194
00:19:49,460 --> 00:19:55,580
But reaching out I think really shows also something else that people want to have in their candidates.

195
00:19:56,260 --> 00:20:04,300
That is proactivity. Proactivity. It's a wonderful skill that every good manager would want to have in their team.

196
00:20:04,580 --> 00:20:11,700
And by going on the lab website, reaching out to the professor, but also look who are the members of the lab.

197
00:20:12,340 --> 00:20:16,140
Reach out to the members of the lab. Ask them, how did you get to your position?

198
00:20:16,700 --> 00:20:20,900
Can you share with me suggestions for my application? Can you share your application?

199
00:20:21,580 --> 00:20:27,500
Some people will say no, but some people will say yes, and then it's definitely worth trying.

200
00:20:28,220 --> 00:20:33,220
I think it's also in my experience and in many people, I heard it's one of the things that worked the best.

201
00:20:34,980 --> 00:20:43,780
Scientific applications usually contains several components. They have, for example, a CV, a cover letter, perhaps a number of reference letters.

202
00:20:44,540 --> 00:20:51,620
So how much weight do you give to each of these, and where should an applicant put most of their effort?

203
00:20:53,860 --> 00:20:57,780
Do you want to start? I think it's different in academia. Yeah.

204
00:20:58,020 --> 00:21:01,500
For CV and cover letters you say. Right. Yeah.

205
00:21:02,060 --> 00:21:05,300
So that's how we cover letters and also references. References.

206
00:21:05,980 --> 00:21:08,980
Yeah. That really depends on the position and the single application.

207
00:21:09,980 --> 00:21:13,180
So I will start with the more conventional one. The references.

208
00:21:14,340 --> 00:21:22,700
Nowadays references are very important. The higher you go actually with the seniority, the more important they become.

209
00:21:23,740 --> 00:21:29,620
And there are different ways of using them. So sometimes you just write them in your CV and that's just fine.

210
00:21:30,020 --> 00:21:37,660
But there are other ways to use them. Sometimes if you worked in a place and that your manager or your professor was really happy with you,

211
00:21:38,060 --> 00:21:43,540
they will be willing to directly reach out to the place where you're interested to go and just put a good word for you.

212
00:21:44,300 --> 00:21:47,860
That's not necessarily. So you still need to go through the whole process afterwards,

213
00:21:48,460 --> 00:21:55,380
but it's a way that sometimes your CV can stand out from the old pile using references in that way.

214
00:21:55,700 --> 00:22:00,740
I think it's quite important, or the other way you can use them in your cover letter at the start.

215
00:22:01,060 --> 00:22:08,460
Say, I heard of this position because this person told it to me, or this person that already works in the company, for example,

216
00:22:09,220 --> 00:22:15,700
or in the lab, so that you showed that you have a direct contact and the manager can decide to go and ask this person directly.

217
00:22:16,300 --> 00:22:24,210
So references. There is. There are multiple ways of using them and I think are extremely important nowadays.

218
00:22:25,530 --> 00:22:33,690
And also the more what makes you a bit more unique compared to just a CV and cover letter for CV and cover letter?

219
00:22:33,970 --> 00:22:37,850
It depends. Then they are, I would say, equally important for different reasons.

220
00:22:39,010 --> 00:22:45,930
In the CV you state your experience. All the classical things needs to be there, but you need to state what is important for the position.

221
00:22:46,610 --> 00:22:51,090
It needs to be readable as a screening. So really fast and really easily understandable.

222
00:22:52,130 --> 00:22:57,010
And the cover letter, as we already said, is what should show your personality a little bit.

223
00:22:57,410 --> 00:23:01,330
And the personality is hiring is as important as skills.

224
00:23:01,850 --> 00:23:06,770
Some, sometimes even more. Yeah, I will agree with Elisa.

225
00:23:07,250 --> 00:23:14,170
So for PhD student it's very simple. We have a scheme for marking okay what goes where, in which box.

226
00:23:14,890 --> 00:23:21,170
So what content in your TV will get you. So it's typically how well you've done in your previous studies.

227
00:23:21,810 --> 00:23:30,010
And Oxford's got specific bar and stats for point. Then what's how the experience that you have had fits with the project you want to do.

228
00:23:30,290 --> 00:23:34,570
And that's about three points then references and then discretionary point.

229
00:23:34,890 --> 00:23:38,810
And the discretionary point is what makes the difference. The rest is very little you can do about.

230
00:23:39,530 --> 00:23:42,570
And the discretionary point is based on extremely strong reference.

231
00:23:43,050 --> 00:23:48,450
And I come back that to that in a moment or a really interesting letter or experience.

232
00:23:49,210 --> 00:23:50,130
Write something that is unusual,

233
00:23:50,610 --> 00:23:56,650
the originality here and something that makes it particularly well fit or you've just in the face of adversity, you've done.

234
00:23:56,890 --> 00:24:00,890
So this is really a balance and it's very hard. And that this this is really discretionary.

235
00:24:01,650 --> 00:24:05,170
So different people in the panel will vote will give you different weights for these things.

236
00:24:05,770 --> 00:24:11,690
But the references at this level, which is different than when you apply for a job or when we recruit people in the lab,

237
00:24:12,690 --> 00:24:18,840
the references give you two things They give you. And it's a little bit strange to stay this way.

238
00:24:19,280 --> 00:24:25,760
And don't take it wrong. But there is still a level in academia of what we call patronage, recognition of peers.

239
00:24:26,440 --> 00:24:33,560
And that's quite important, because the recognition of peers gives you an idea that the people within that you may hire

240
00:24:34,280 --> 00:24:38,520
just have an idea of what is expected of them that they have worked with in that environment,

241
00:24:39,120 --> 00:24:43,200
and they obey by the same values and the values in academia. It is about rigorous.

242
00:24:43,720 --> 00:24:47,720
It is about ethical aspect of the research. It's about all of these things.

243
00:24:48,000 --> 00:24:53,000
And so if somebody endorses you, it's really good news. Typically you don't see your own references.

244
00:24:53,680 --> 00:24:56,520
They've been sent anonymously. So we see them but you don't.

245
00:24:56,920 --> 00:25:02,960
So sometimes the references are pretty bold and very honest about the fact that this is not somebody you should hire.

246
00:25:03,840 --> 00:25:08,720
That's something that you may consider. That's who you are. As a reference to other references.

247
00:25:09,520 --> 00:25:15,520
You need to read between the line of what's not being said in the references, but then the references that are truly outstanding,

248
00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:21,720
just like the letter of application will do shine and will tell us something quite different about the candidate.

249
00:25:22,480 --> 00:25:27,240
So you need to choose carefully who you ask a reference to, because that will also.

250
00:25:28,360 --> 00:25:31,800
And then I would say another thing and you say it's at the very senior level.

251
00:25:32,640 --> 00:25:37,280
Nobody writes a reference for you. You write your own references which is extremely painful to do.

252
00:25:37,520 --> 00:25:42,120
So these have no value whatsoever except that somebody is endorsing you.

253
00:25:42,320 --> 00:25:45,760
So it's just like getting a tick on your Twitter page, right?

254
00:25:46,000 --> 00:25:53,520
It's as bad as that. So then having somebody who sponsor you and puts you forward for a position makes a huge difference.

255
00:25:54,520 --> 00:25:58,560
But so depending at which level you operate, the reference will have very different values.

256
00:25:59,160 --> 00:26:02,280
But they are always an endorsement of somebody you can.

257
00:26:02,600 --> 00:26:08,040
If you really do not think the candidate is suitable for the job, you can refuse to write a reference for them.

258
00:26:08,320 --> 00:26:13,350
And that's sometimes better than writing a bad one, But at the same time, as I said, you need to read between the lines.

259
00:26:13,830 --> 00:26:16,390
If you've been in a lab for the last six years, for example,

260
00:26:17,110 --> 00:26:22,990
and you do not ask your supervisor to write a reference, I think I would ask a candidate why that is.

261
00:26:23,510 --> 00:26:28,550
And it might be that there are personal problems that's totally acceptable, but not having a reference.

262
00:26:28,950 --> 00:26:33,310
Sometimes it just can be a little red flag. So you need to be very careful about who you ask.

263
00:26:35,550 --> 00:26:39,830
One question. Sorry if I can ask him. Actually, that's a very tricky point.

264
00:26:40,630 --> 00:26:43,990
If you work for even in a lab for six years and don't ask a reference to your supervisor,

265
00:26:44,670 --> 00:26:50,470
would you suggest people to mention why they didn't ask the reference to their supervisor in their cover letter?

266
00:26:50,950 --> 00:26:59,110
Because multiple people had problems with their supervisors, with their professors, and it's always a bit of a taboo to speak about it.

267
00:26:59,750 --> 00:27:03,870
And it's also when you're looking for a job because you are leaving, maybe your PhD,

268
00:27:04,150 --> 00:27:07,630
because you are in a toxic environment and people don't know what to say.

269
00:27:07,910 --> 00:27:11,510
They cannot say, I'm in a toxic environment. I want to live. They are blamed for that.

270
00:27:11,950 --> 00:27:16,390
So what do you suggest to a PhD student that had actually awful experience?

271
00:27:16,910 --> 00:27:18,310
Maybe. And they cannot ask to their supervisor.

272
00:27:18,830 --> 00:27:23,430
Would you suggest to mention it or how would you know I wouldn't I think something that you can raise at the interview,

273
00:27:24,070 --> 00:27:28,430
I think it's totally acceptable to not ask a reference for one of the reasons, maybe,

274
00:27:28,710 --> 00:27:32,550
that you don't want to say to the person that you intend to leave because until you have an option.

275
00:27:33,030 --> 00:27:38,830
So I think that's totally acceptable. People understand so what you and it's totally acceptable not to have it.

276
00:27:38,990 --> 00:27:42,950
But you can ask the candidate that just at the interview. And what is your supervisor?

277
00:27:43,950 --> 00:27:48,470
Is there a particular reason for that? Then you leave it to that. They see as as much or as little as they want.

278
00:27:48,910 --> 00:27:53,830
It's totally acceptable not to have a references from the place you are currently at.

279
00:27:55,110 --> 00:28:01,110
Thank you so much. You know, each of these questions are very broad, and therefore we can spend an hour to discuss each of the questions,

280
00:28:01,470 --> 00:28:05,670
but we should move on as wrapping up questions for the first team.

281
00:28:06,150 --> 00:28:11,380
Usually I feel that the applicants, in particular PhD student ship applicants,

282
00:28:11,900 --> 00:28:17,580
they don't have a good impression of how much time is needed spending on preparing a good application.

283
00:28:18,420 --> 00:28:22,580
So what your advice would be on that? Would it be done in a few days?

284
00:28:23,580 --> 00:28:31,100
Or do they need more time? So in terms of a PhD is a huge endeavour.

285
00:28:32,060 --> 00:28:33,700
Okay. It's going to be four years work.

286
00:28:34,460 --> 00:28:40,220
If you think that you can apply to a lab without having read at least half of the papers that the lab has published.

287
00:28:41,020 --> 00:28:45,620
Having tried to understand the way they think, whether the question much what you think,

288
00:28:46,180 --> 00:28:52,580
it's not because you work on a gene and the person has published one paper with the same genes name,

289
00:28:52,820 --> 00:28:57,820
for example, that that that is sufficient for you to be interested in their work.

290
00:28:58,540 --> 00:29:01,700
You really do need to make the effort, and I see this as part of the process.

291
00:29:02,260 --> 00:29:08,060
If you don't show curiosity, Enthusiasm. Interest in the scientific question.

292
00:29:09,180 --> 00:29:13,780
You're in it for the wrong reason. Okay. Doing a PhD. It's extremely demanding.

293
00:29:14,460 --> 00:29:17,500
It needs to be a good match, and you need to know why you're doing it.

294
00:29:17,860 --> 00:29:20,780
So the application itself can be written very quickly,

295
00:29:21,660 --> 00:29:28,860
but the process that gets you to wanting to do the PG in a specific lab with specific people is not because the job was advertised.

296
00:29:29,740 --> 00:29:34,660
This is a different thing. If you're applying for a position like a research assistant or postdoc,

297
00:29:35,340 --> 00:29:37,860
it's a slightly different thing because you're at a different stage in your career,

298
00:29:38,220 --> 00:29:42,500
and you will know a little bit more about what the scientific question that interests you or whether you want to retrain.

299
00:29:43,500 --> 00:29:50,380
But for a PhD, if you think that you can just write your application without knowing anything about the person you're applying with,

300
00:29:50,900 --> 00:29:56,060
I think that's a big mistake. It's for both parties, I would say, and that probably will show in your application.

301
00:29:58,300 --> 00:30:02,140
And it's a do you have anything to add? I need to agree with what Anna said.

302
00:30:02,380 --> 00:30:05,410
At least I can imagine that an Oxford PhD programs,

303
00:30:05,850 --> 00:30:12,170
they're so extremely competitive that nobody can think to send an application unprepared for industry positions.

304
00:30:12,610 --> 00:30:18,410
It's a bit different, but at the end, the same principle apply that you need to show that you have done your own work.

305
00:30:18,850 --> 00:30:23,650
So a minimum of preparation is anyway needed. Yeah.

306
00:30:23,850 --> 00:30:26,770
Thank you. And for the last question of this theme, very briefly,

307
00:30:27,810 --> 00:30:35,770
if you if you have to just give one piece of advice to the applicant before pressing the submit button, what would that be?

308
00:30:37,410 --> 00:30:41,850
Make it attractive to us. Make it entertaining. Make it worthwhile of all time.

309
00:30:42,770 --> 00:30:48,450
You really do want to get the best candidates. Please, if you think you are it, just tell us.

310
00:30:49,970 --> 00:30:57,010
We love to have the best candidates, but you do need to understand what is it that you're applying for,

311
00:30:57,410 --> 00:31:04,610
and make sure that you tell us why, what are the reasons and how you will contribute, and that's also part of your personal journey.

312
00:31:05,690 --> 00:31:16,330
It's a waste of time if you don't do that. With that in mind. Yeah, I would tell people to get it checked by other people and get feedback.

313
00:31:17,330 --> 00:31:24,370
So before sending it, I will say get feedback optimally by people that are in a similar position to the ones that will judge you.

314
00:31:24,850 --> 00:31:28,010
But if you can't, also by peers, I think any feedback is useful.

315
00:31:29,570 --> 00:31:36,890
Yeah, that is also what I wanted to add. Do your homework and get help from other peers or other experienced people before pressing the button.

316
00:31:37,370 --> 00:31:41,010
And I would add that if it's a short application, it's never right the first time around.

317
00:31:41,570 --> 00:31:50,690
It's a process. It needs to start, stop, be reframed until you feel really comfortable and you feel that when you're reading it, it represents you.

318
00:31:51,890 --> 00:31:57,050
Thank you. And now we are in the second team which is understanding the selection process.

319
00:31:57,530 --> 00:32:07,000
But before that, is there any question from audience? If yes, please raise your hand or write your question in the chat so I can read it out.

320
00:32:07,560 --> 00:32:14,040
Currently, I don't see anything and therefore I move on to next question.

321
00:32:15,160 --> 00:32:19,280
And that is about how competitive the whole process is.

322
00:32:20,040 --> 00:32:29,720
So for example, for a PhD studentship or perhaps a very prestigious postdoc position, what sort of numbers are we talking about here?

323
00:32:30,640 --> 00:32:35,680
What is the typical and what is the largest number of applications that each of

324
00:32:35,840 --> 00:32:39,160
you have personally received for one position that you have served as a panel?

325
00:32:41,800 --> 00:32:46,040
It will depend. So for different students this is handled at the level of the department.

326
00:32:46,800 --> 00:32:52,160
It's very complicated in Oxford. To give you an idea, in medical science we have 17 departments and you apply to a department.

327
00:32:52,640 --> 00:32:57,680
It's the same thing with college. I'm not going to explain how Oxford does not work because it does not work Efficiently,

328
00:32:58,720 --> 00:33:02,960
but typically within the department we would receive the centrally located.

329
00:33:03,440 --> 00:33:09,680
We will receive in excess of 3400 applications. We probably have 500 places,

330
00:33:10,680 --> 00:33:19,040
but we will take about 30 students a year who will have their own funding or can go through open competition or as self-funded.

331
00:33:19,920 --> 00:33:27,080
So that will give you an idea of the time, the type of numbers we are dealing with in one of the 17th department of the Medical Science faculty.

332
00:33:28,120 --> 00:33:34,600
So yeah, I would say we get about 400. It depends from year to year and we would have 500 places.

333
00:33:36,440 --> 00:33:42,680
Eliezer what about in industrial side. Yeah. Not maybe not only in industry but the differences between different universities,

334
00:33:43,520 --> 00:33:47,440
I would say, because I think places like Oxford, Cambridge also different US.

335
00:33:47,840 --> 00:33:53,000
First League, Premier League, they have very competitive also open application calls.

336
00:33:53,480 --> 00:33:55,200
It's not like that in every universities.

337
00:33:56,080 --> 00:34:03,390
There are many places where the single group or the single professor publishes one position, for example, and one can apply for that.

338
00:34:03,750 --> 00:34:09,910
So that was mostly my case. Or there was maybe a small panel like 12 PhD positions and people were applying.

339
00:34:10,590 --> 00:34:17,100
So I had an application where I had 60 applicants and applications and the position for which I had 3 or 4.

340
00:34:17,750 --> 00:34:24,750
And with this, I want to say one thing to also don't underestimate the whole university,

341
00:34:25,390 --> 00:34:28,630
also smaller universities, because it may be easier to get in.

342
00:34:29,110 --> 00:34:34,350
And at the same time, it doesn't mean the quality of the research is lower just because the university is smaller.

343
00:34:35,110 --> 00:34:40,630
So that's one thing always to consider when you balance the effort that you put in different applications.

344
00:34:42,030 --> 00:34:46,830
That's one thing I was told. Also for professorship positions, you need to enter into the field.

345
00:34:47,630 --> 00:34:55,950
Maybe you enter in a smaller university and then you move to a more important university afterwards, instead of pointing directly to the first leg.

346
00:34:56,230 --> 00:34:56,830
There are different strategies.

347
00:34:58,110 --> 00:35:06,230
In industry there, it's a bit different because in big companies or medium sized companies like above 5000 people or 2000 people companies,

348
00:35:07,230 --> 00:35:13,030
we get hundreds and hundreds of applications, but they get screened first by the HR department.

349
00:35:13,950 --> 00:35:23,270
So what the manager sees in the end is just a minority of the application we are sent only, I don't know, 1012 maximum 20 CV's.

350
00:35:24,870 --> 00:35:26,870
So there there is a barrier much earlier.

351
00:35:27,310 --> 00:35:33,910
And in big companies it's often very important to send your application very early when the position comes out.

352
00:35:34,190 --> 00:35:39,350
Because if the application number grows too much, they just close the position after one week or two weeks.

353
00:35:41,670 --> 00:35:50,430
Thank you. And with these sort of numbers, realistically, how much time might a reviewer spend on the first pass through of an application?

354
00:35:53,060 --> 00:35:57,660
So when it comes to DPhil student, each application is being seen by 3 or 4 reviewers for shortlisting.

355
00:35:58,980 --> 00:36:03,780
I would say people who experience can do it in ten minutes. Probably people will not experience may take an hour.

356
00:36:04,780 --> 00:36:12,220
And so we have a pool of short listers who will receive, I don't know, a pack of 30 to 40 applications.

357
00:36:13,140 --> 00:36:17,220
And so this is distributed. And then we look at the consistency across marks.

358
00:36:18,500 --> 00:36:22,860
So it's quite a long process. And then based on that we will shortlist people for interviews.

359
00:36:24,500 --> 00:36:30,620
And we do this several times during the year. And then the people who are shortlisted for interviews, they will really reset the bar.

360
00:36:31,060 --> 00:36:33,860
And it is the interview performance that is being taken into consideration.

361
00:36:35,500 --> 00:36:40,140
We would interview if we have two panels, no interviewing over a whole week, so you can imagine that end.

362
00:36:40,300 --> 00:36:41,580
The interview is about 50 minutes.

363
00:36:42,100 --> 00:36:48,140
So this is quite a lot of work, and the interview is a completely different process where we're looking at, of course,

364
00:36:48,620 --> 00:36:58,300
the information we have in front of us references CV and letter, but also the performance and to me, the student, the ability to teach and how.

365
00:36:58,580 --> 00:37:01,580
Whether the match is the rights for the particular group.

366
00:37:02,420 --> 00:37:04,020
So all of these things are really important,

367
00:37:04,900 --> 00:37:10,740
but it's an interesting process because it's not necessarily the candidate who looks the best on paper will get the job.

368
00:37:11,100 --> 00:37:15,900
If the candidate who looks the fittest for the particular position, that will get the job.

369
00:37:17,540 --> 00:37:21,660
And these are two different things because of course it involves the human element fitting within a team.

370
00:37:22,420 --> 00:37:23,500
All of these things are really important.

371
00:37:23,980 --> 00:37:28,860
Even if you recruit some research assistant or postdoc, it really needs to be the right person for your group.

372
00:37:31,460 --> 00:37:33,500
Sure. And so do you have anything to add to this?

373
00:37:34,100 --> 00:37:38,900
I would just say that the industry is very different or wherever there is not a formal process behind.

374
00:37:39,580 --> 00:37:42,980
It's of course different because you don't have to score specific things.

375
00:37:43,380 --> 00:37:48,770
So there I would say it goes even faster. So ten 15 minutes for each application.

376
00:37:49,330 --> 00:37:54,850
The maximum you give more time just to the ones that catch your attention. Yeah.

377
00:37:55,250 --> 00:37:58,690
And that brings me to another very important question.

378
00:38:00,410 --> 00:38:09,290
And that is about rejection. People can understandably interpret rejection as saying something fundamental about their abilities,

379
00:38:09,850 --> 00:38:15,010
or even sometimes about their personalities from the other side of the table.

380
00:38:15,530 --> 00:38:21,290
What does rejection actually mean? How the applicant should take the rejection letters.

381
00:38:22,410 --> 00:38:28,490
What advice would you have for them? So it all depends whether they were rejected.

382
00:38:29,290 --> 00:38:34,250
They weren't shortlisted for interviews or whether they didn't get an offer after interview.

383
00:38:34,650 --> 00:38:39,810
These are two completely different step. I think if we interview people,

384
00:38:40,370 --> 00:38:46,730
we really try hard to make it a pleasant experience and an informative experience for them, no matter what the output is.

385
00:38:47,050 --> 00:38:50,370
these are students. They put a lot of energy. There is a lot of stake.

386
00:38:50,970 --> 00:38:54,090
It's really important for us to make sure that this is a positive experience.

387
00:38:55,610 --> 00:39:03,530
If you don't get shortlisted, it's this. It means that the way candidates that were above you in a ranking, it doesn't mean that you necessarily.

388
00:39:04,210 --> 00:39:09,530
And you may just be the one below. But the difficulty there is that you're not going to get any feedback.

389
00:39:10,730 --> 00:39:11,490
You're just not being shortlisted.

390
00:39:12,090 --> 00:39:18,610
I think with the interview, you get a slightly different feel for whether or not we were able to offer you a position or not.

391
00:39:19,210 --> 00:39:24,690
So these are different stages. So the rejection means that the fit was probably not quite right,

392
00:39:25,290 --> 00:39:30,970
and that you need to rethink either your strategy, what you how you package yourself,

393
00:39:31,650 --> 00:39:37,370
or just that you were in a year where the stream was particularly strong and that just did not work well enough for you,

394
00:39:37,810 --> 00:39:42,890
then try to consolidate your background, try to make sure that you can improve your application,

395
00:39:43,570 --> 00:39:47,040
and hopefully you get to gain something from the experience no matter what happens.

396
00:39:48,240 --> 00:39:53,000
Not getting in. It's not strictly a rejection. Is that other people's way more qualified, at least on paper,

397
00:39:53,320 --> 00:39:58,160
because you did not provide the right information or just because they were more qualified than you need a bit more qualification.

398
00:40:01,440 --> 00:40:06,200
Oh yeah. So two things. I don't think people have to take rejection personally.

399
00:40:06,840 --> 00:40:11,080
Exactly. For all these things that it depends really from the condition of the competition.

400
00:40:11,960 --> 00:40:17,720
So if you are competing for a position at Oxford, the competition is so high that you may be excellent.

401
00:40:18,360 --> 00:40:23,000
Still don't get in. And it's the same way you're participating to grant applications and stuff like that.

402
00:40:23,280 --> 00:40:29,360
So you need to take into account that there may be factors that you cannot control for at the same time.

403
00:40:29,600 --> 00:40:37,200
Of course, you always need to improve yourself, and that there is where feedback is very important when it is possible to be given.

404
00:40:37,520 --> 00:40:41,080
So there are occasions where you apply where people can actually give you feedback,

405
00:40:41,560 --> 00:40:49,440
although I must admit is rarer than it should to have feedback, but I had cases of applicants.

406
00:40:50,040 --> 00:40:57,800
For example, I had many good applicants and then I really had the luxury to choose, but there were several that I would have hired gladly.

407
00:40:58,440 --> 00:41:04,680
And I have cases where I had, for example, not even one applicant that was at the sufficient threshold.

408
00:41:05,200 --> 00:41:10,440
So there is a strong component of who are your competitors in the application.

409
00:41:11,320 --> 00:41:15,600
That's why you should not take it personally, because it depends from a lot of factors.

410
00:41:16,600 --> 00:41:25,400
But when possible I would say really try to get feedback because that's what makes makes it different interpretation of the rejection.

411
00:41:26,840 --> 00:41:30,880
And thank you, Bob. Before moving to next theme, there are a few questions here.

412
00:41:31,120 --> 00:41:37,960
One question is about AI screening because the next theme is about AI, and we may cover this in the next theme.

413
00:41:38,680 --> 00:41:39,880
I will come back to this later.

414
00:41:40,840 --> 00:41:49,120
The other question is what advice can you offer to industry veterans, somebody who has been in industry for ten plus years?

415
00:41:49,800 --> 00:41:53,160
What sort of skills should you emphasise? Thank you.

416
00:41:53,760 --> 00:41:58,080
Yeah, I would say that strongly depends on the industry position that you are in.

417
00:41:58,640 --> 00:42:07,200
Because, for example, I passed from a scientist position to middle management to apply to a more senior management position in industry

418
00:42:07,760 --> 00:42:12,960
and the way that applications and selections are done for the different levels are completely different,

419
00:42:13,600 --> 00:42:17,800
and also the kind of skills that you need to emphasise for the different positions are different.

420
00:42:18,520 --> 00:42:21,560
If you are in industry but you are a scientist level still,

421
00:42:22,360 --> 00:42:29,280
you will still emphasise probably your hard skills or in terms of lab techniques and things like that.

422
00:42:29,760 --> 00:42:36,200
If you are at a higher level, then the hard skills that you had as a scientist, they don't count as much anymore.

423
00:42:36,760 --> 00:42:44,550
If you go into management, there are other skills like stakeholder management, for example, or conflict management if you go into lead.

424
00:42:44,870 --> 00:42:48,790
People leadership. There are a set of other skills that you need to demonstrate.

425
00:42:49,670 --> 00:42:54,150
So it depends really from the type of industry and the type of position.

426
00:42:54,870 --> 00:42:59,550
And for there. Also, for me it's still a learning curve I must say.

427
00:42:59,910 --> 00:43:05,750
And I'm learning from asking other people that are in the positions that I would like to cover.

428
00:43:06,110 --> 00:43:09,750
For example, in addition to looking on the internet.

429
00:43:10,270 --> 00:43:14,990
So to a veteran in industry, I would say it depends where you want to go.

430
00:43:16,350 --> 00:43:22,470
This said, I must also say that nowadays the market is completely different from even just four years ago.

431
00:43:23,630 --> 00:43:28,950
So four years ago, my response rate for applications was like, I don't know, 10%.

432
00:43:29,990 --> 00:43:32,790
Now, also, knowing other people that are looking for a job,

433
00:43:33,030 --> 00:43:38,630
the response rate is much lower because there has been in the past two years and industry floating of layoffs,

434
00:43:39,590 --> 00:43:43,430
so this needs to be considered when applied for industry jobs nowadays.

435
00:43:46,070 --> 00:43:52,310
I think this is true in academia as well. This problem with funding. So there's much fewer postdoc in array position at the moment.

436
00:43:52,830 --> 00:43:57,350
And that's just a cycle. Just be patient. It will come back. But it is absolutely true.

437
00:43:57,950 --> 00:44:01,430
The job situation for this type of qualification is difficult at the moment.

438
00:44:02,950 --> 00:44:05,990
Thank you both. The other question is somehow related question.

439
00:44:06,550 --> 00:44:09,670
And because of time, I appreciate a brief answer to that.

440
00:44:09,950 --> 00:44:19,230
It's more advice about reskilling. So is that basically switching from one field to another field.

441
00:44:19,590 --> 00:44:23,070
And the question is that I have for nearly I think 19 years,

442
00:44:23,350 --> 00:44:31,030
if I see of experience working as a software engineer now, I want to do research in cancer or biological sciences.

443
00:44:31,670 --> 00:44:34,790
What advice would you have for that? Engage with somebody.

444
00:44:35,430 --> 00:44:39,140
Just talk to people. This is an unusual situation. It may have a lot of advantage.

445
00:44:39,740 --> 00:44:44,780
It may not be possible. You need to do your homework, catch up with the field and engage with individual.

446
00:44:46,820 --> 00:44:50,540
And I would say find a position or someone that were your previous.

447
00:44:51,340 --> 00:44:54,740
Some of your previous experience can bring advantage to your skilling,

448
00:44:56,300 --> 00:45:02,660
because that's also something that maybe you can sell your previous experience as an advantage in certain occasions.

449
00:45:03,220 --> 00:45:07,020
But you need also to find the right position and the right person to work with. Thank you.

450
00:45:07,260 --> 00:45:09,620
With this, let's move on to next theme, which is AI.

451
00:45:10,140 --> 00:45:18,100
And we have noticed I and in particular generative AI and large language models have changed the landscape quite a lot.

452
00:45:19,020 --> 00:45:22,940
And the main topic here is that is AI really a friend or foe?

453
00:45:23,220 --> 00:45:32,100
So the first question is that have you already noticed a change in the applications you received since generative AI became widely available?

454
00:45:33,380 --> 00:45:38,220
Yes. No doubt. Yes. So in a good way or in a bad way.

455
00:45:38,340 --> 00:45:41,580
So. Both. Both. Okay. Both.

456
00:45:41,980 --> 00:45:45,580
Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I think so.

457
00:45:45,820 --> 00:45:47,980
I'll go with the next question, because this is exactly it.

458
00:45:48,180 --> 00:45:57,420
Has AI improved the overall quality of applications, or has it simply made many applications look like increasingly similar?

459
00:45:59,260 --> 00:46:04,220
Yes, both. So it all depends how you use AI.

460
00:46:04,580 --> 00:46:09,180
And I think when you use AI. So the the advantage for AI, I don't have.

461
00:46:09,540 --> 00:46:13,460
It's nicely presented and there is no spelling mistakes. The grammar is correct.

462
00:46:14,340 --> 00:46:17,180
No. So but a lot of the time the words don't mean very much.

463
00:46:18,660 --> 00:46:24,140
That's I would say that on AI does, what AI is asked to do is to write an average application.

464
00:46:25,180 --> 00:46:31,890
Right? So if you use it at the beginning of the process, you're probably not going to get much out of it if you use it to polish the application.

465
00:46:32,690 --> 00:46:37,330
It's a great advantage that I would think is a general rule, but it needs to be yours.

466
00:46:37,730 --> 00:46:44,770
An AI can't do that. Even if you have an agent, it's not you, it's not personal, it's not original, and it reads as such.

467
00:46:46,170 --> 00:46:51,290
And it also has a strong training bias towards certain cultural ways of writing.

468
00:46:51,930 --> 00:46:55,810
Because, for example, when you just ask AI to write some a cover letter,

469
00:46:56,290 --> 00:47:00,890
normally it writes it in the American style, which is not necessarily what you need.

470
00:47:01,730 --> 00:47:08,450
And there are some standard formulas nowadays that you can see in both CVS and cover letters that you say this is written,

471
00:47:08,730 --> 00:47:13,450
which are typed in immediately. So it is important to avoid this impression.

472
00:47:13,970 --> 00:47:17,170
I would say it has no interest for me to read an average statement.

473
00:47:18,210 --> 00:47:21,330
I can generate it myself, so that is the key thing.

474
00:47:21,650 --> 00:47:26,530
Just think about originality and personality. That is what AI will take away.

475
00:47:27,130 --> 00:47:30,770
It will just give you an average. That's what large language model do. they average?

476
00:47:31,930 --> 00:47:34,730
It was statistical to. Yeah, in a sense, what you're saying, Ann,

477
00:47:34,890 --> 00:47:40,370
is that one of the strengths of yours as an applicant applicant is perhaps how different you are from the others.

478
00:47:40,810 --> 00:47:44,170
But when you are going to AI and asking AI, perhaps blindly,

479
00:47:45,330 --> 00:47:52,250
you are making yourself very similar to others and you are lost in the distribution of hundreds of applications, perhaps?

480
00:47:53,290 --> 00:48:01,010
Absolutely. So you will just be part of the average and you unlikely to make the shortlist because however, to overcome the problem.

481
00:48:01,370 --> 00:48:08,170
So there are ways to make AI the powerful tool I would say. I don't know if this was going to be the next question or not.

482
00:48:08,450 --> 00:48:12,890
It is, you know, it's a very useful tool, but you need to know how to use it.

483
00:48:13,330 --> 00:48:21,450
It absolutely, absolutely. The question was how it is used and how it should be used when preparing a job application.

484
00:48:22,450 --> 00:48:26,970
So if you have any advice will be great. So there are a few usages.

485
00:48:27,570 --> 00:48:30,920
And I already said one right? First your own and then ask for Polish.

486
00:48:31,400 --> 00:48:39,720
So that's one way. Another way. If you are already applied for multiple things and you have a bunch of your own cover letter and things.

487
00:48:40,160 --> 00:48:47,760
One way is to give all of them in input to the AI and say, this is my writing style, so you should respect what is my writing style,

488
00:48:48,120 --> 00:48:55,520
for example, and then know that there is no way that the AI can build a good cover letter just with one AI iteration.

489
00:48:56,480 --> 00:49:00,520
So there is no way that you write. Write me a cover letter and then you send that cover letter.

490
00:49:00,840 --> 00:49:06,400
You are going to spend still hours, so maybe a bit less than writing a very good cover letter yourself,

491
00:49:07,200 --> 00:49:12,280
but you're going to spend a significant amount of time reiterating with the AI change this, change that.

492
00:49:13,320 --> 00:49:22,640
When you see a certain position, decide in advance which of your skills, which of your experiences you want to have written in the cover letter,

493
00:49:22,960 --> 00:49:29,520
for example, and tell AI, write this in the cover letter because it reflects this in the position of what is needed.

494
00:49:30,080 --> 00:49:34,720
So if you just give your CV to AI and the advertised position and tell,

495
00:49:35,360 --> 00:49:38,440
make me a cover letter is going to add things that usually they're not even

496
00:49:38,680 --> 00:49:42,160
relevant or it's not going to highlight the things that you may want to highlight.

497
00:49:43,040 --> 00:49:47,880
So it's important to put personality in the AI conversation, I would say,

498
00:49:48,880 --> 00:49:52,560
and I would say also that you need to be very careful about the positive

499
00:49:53,040 --> 00:49:55,880
reinforcement that you got from AI telling you that you're doing the right thing.

500
00:49:56,320 --> 00:50:00,280
And so just be confident about what you do, not what you've been told by AI.

501
00:50:00,560 --> 00:50:06,960
I think it's a real problem that people see that just they think they're doing the right thing because I tell them I like this version better.

502
00:50:07,320 --> 00:50:14,200
I think this really reflects you. This is really dangerous, and people get addicted to that as well, especially if you're not quite sure.

503
00:50:14,440 --> 00:50:20,640
So I think what is good to have the AI is to have a conversation about what the position is before you start writing,

504
00:50:21,320 --> 00:50:24,750
and then the polishing, but it can find a lot of information about the company.

505
00:50:25,390 --> 00:50:28,510
It can just try to say, where would I fit? What do you think? My role.

506
00:50:29,270 --> 00:50:33,150
So this is an interesting conversation that you may have and gain access to information.

507
00:50:34,510 --> 00:50:37,870
But when it comes to writing the application itself, please don't be lazy.

508
00:50:41,270 --> 00:50:48,550
There is another argument when it comes to the use of AI, and that is that AI can level the play field, meaning that in particular,

509
00:50:49,150 --> 00:50:57,030
for applicants whose first language is not English or who have had less access to mentoring, it is a great help.

510
00:50:57,630 --> 00:51:06,350
But of course, the opposite argument is that perhaps AI just widening the gap between those who have access to technology and those who don't.

511
00:51:07,030 --> 00:51:13,910
So what your comments are on that? I think it's a great tool for people who are not native speakers.

512
00:51:14,350 --> 00:51:20,950
I totally agree, but that is in the polishing a lot of the time when I read material from students, they say, oh, I'm not a native speaker.

513
00:51:21,230 --> 00:51:24,470
I'm not a native speaker either. So I can take the argument.

514
00:51:24,870 --> 00:51:31,790
I know it is harder, but at the same time, when you develop an argument, the language does not matter in which you argue.

515
00:51:32,270 --> 00:51:35,550
It is about having a proposition, having the evidence and a conclusion.

516
00:51:36,070 --> 00:51:42,150
Right? This is universal in any language. So for polishing the language and the grammar super useful.

517
00:51:42,830 --> 00:51:47,950
I'm so delighted that I don't have to correct the grammar into the PhD students thesis anymore.

518
00:51:48,470 --> 00:51:55,270
This is really liberating for me. This used to take a lot of time, but the logic of thinking remains there.

519
00:51:55,510 --> 00:51:59,910
So I think that is something that would be really valuable to people.

520
00:52:00,510 --> 00:52:05,950
And I'm not saying that they need to have a translation, but if they don't have any comment of English, then they shouldn't be here.

521
00:52:06,150 --> 00:52:14,190
They should first learn English. But although otherwise, I think if you use it for anything else than polishing, it's not a good idea.

522
00:52:14,710 --> 00:52:20,470
And I think it does help people from abroad for that reason. Yeah, so I agree.

523
00:52:20,750 --> 00:52:26,380
The point is that if you're applying in a certain country, normally in an English speaking country, you're supposed to have a language certificate.

524
00:52:27,060 --> 00:52:30,100
So you should be able to write at a certain level despite not perfect.

525
00:52:31,580 --> 00:52:36,220
In certain situations, you may still maybe write your ideas and cover letters.

526
00:52:36,500 --> 00:52:43,500
And then before AI, we were using Google Translator to find certain terms or for certain things.

527
00:52:43,820 --> 00:52:48,180
So if you have problems finding specific words in English,

528
00:52:49,620 --> 00:52:56,060
you can still write the concepts that or think the concepts in your own language and then find help from AI to translate them correctly.

529
00:52:59,180 --> 00:53:05,780
My next question to this is the opposite side of it use of AI by selection panel.

530
00:53:06,260 --> 00:53:10,580
That selection panel also use for helping them to select candidates.

531
00:53:11,540 --> 00:53:15,420
There is also advantages and disadvantages and some risks there.

532
00:53:15,780 --> 00:53:19,980
So could you please elaborate each of you A little bit.

533
00:53:21,340 --> 00:53:24,500
I don't know if it is an unpopular opinion, but in my opinion it's a big problem.

534
00:53:25,340 --> 00:53:29,260
AI to screen candidates. And again, I think it depends how you do it.

535
00:53:30,020 --> 00:53:35,460
I had colleagues and my own experience where that had to undergo AI interviews.

536
00:53:36,860 --> 00:53:44,140
I think that's strongly disrespectful to candidates to tell them you need to do a one hour AI interview.

537
00:53:46,100 --> 00:53:54,380
So there is way and way to do it. If you just use AI to screen for keywords in the application, maybe it can be fine.

538
00:53:55,060 --> 00:54:03,380
But if you use it as I said to in this way to humiliate people, then that's not okay.

539
00:54:04,060 --> 00:54:09,620
But it is a huge problem, I would say, because sometimes you don't make it in the pool just because the AI decided that you don't.

540
00:54:10,900 --> 00:54:15,740
So that's a good solution yet. I totally agree with Lisa.

541
00:54:16,020 --> 00:54:19,690
I would say in academia we don't. We're not allowed to use AI for screening applications.

542
00:54:20,570 --> 00:54:23,170
I'm not saying that not everybody does it, but we're not allowed.

543
00:54:23,570 --> 00:54:27,970
And the same thing when you review grants, since one of the conditions is that you will not use AI to review.

544
00:54:28,730 --> 00:54:30,210
It's true for also journal articles.

545
00:54:31,210 --> 00:54:38,050
Now I can see a benefit if you have a pile of application to just get it to screen to see whether they meet the minimum criteria as you set it.

546
00:54:38,370 --> 00:54:42,610
But beyond that, absolutely not. So we still have a lot of task force.

547
00:54:42,930 --> 00:54:46,570
We can have 3 or 4 people per application for the shortlisting process.

548
00:54:47,410 --> 00:54:51,170
It may change in the future, but this is still and it's not a perfect process.

549
00:54:51,650 --> 00:54:53,290
Relying on human is not a perfect process.

550
00:54:53,930 --> 00:54:59,210
You have an interview after lunch may be different than what you get before lunch, or if you're the beginning or the end.

551
00:54:59,370 --> 00:55:07,250
So we also have problems with panels, but simply in academia we do not screen CVS or application with AI at this point in time.

552
00:55:08,890 --> 00:55:13,850
And I think for a company, maybe it also tells you something about the company or the place where you're applying.

553
00:55:14,770 --> 00:55:21,930
The way that they use AI. Sometimes you don't want to go working for a company that uses a in a certain way.

554
00:55:22,090 --> 00:55:27,930
I think companies also have to think how they use AI, because indeed it can be tricky.

555
00:55:28,250 --> 00:55:32,330
It can be misleading. So that's something that it's a bigger topic.

556
00:55:32,850 --> 00:55:35,530
And there's a big discussion point still. Yeah.

557
00:55:35,770 --> 00:55:41,450
And there is actually a relevant question about this that for companies, if HR uses AI to screen the applicant,

558
00:55:41,850 --> 00:55:47,290
it will be very unfair on candidates and perhaps not accepted because of the time.

559
00:55:47,650 --> 00:55:56,050
I would like to just have a couple of concluding questions. And the first one in that regard is beyond technical expertise.

560
00:55:57,250 --> 00:56:02,570
What qualities do you think will become increasingly valuable in young scientists?

561
00:56:05,370 --> 00:56:12,250
But may they remain the same? Is curiosity, passion and enthusiasm, interest, humility as well, I would say.

562
00:56:12,690 --> 00:56:19,320
But that comes with curiosity. So the desire to discover something new, to challenge yourself beyond what you think you're capable to do,

563
00:56:19,800 --> 00:56:21,920
that is very difficult and requires a lot of maturity.

564
00:56:22,760 --> 00:56:29,600
That's why there is a system to help you and to give you a stepping stone, as well as having typical exams.

565
00:56:30,120 --> 00:56:34,080
So that tells you that you are going through the boundaries. But curiosity is everything.

566
00:56:34,800 --> 00:56:38,880
So that's why you need to do your homework. You cannot be curious about something you don't know anything about.

567
00:56:40,560 --> 00:56:44,400
Thank you. An Elisa, I can relate. I would say what I said before about proactivity.

568
00:56:45,400 --> 00:56:47,440
This is one of the things that is most important to me.

569
00:56:47,600 --> 00:56:55,040
And then one of the things that is important not only for candidates, but for people nowadays in general, is complex thinking and critical thinking.

570
00:56:56,040 --> 00:57:03,320
I think that's essential, as a scientist, to be able to do complex thinking, to challenge our own beliefs and hypotheses.

571
00:57:04,360 --> 00:57:09,120
And it's a skill that I would say is never enough. And that comes from curiosity.

572
00:57:10,760 --> 00:57:17,760
You keep on asking question. I think that is exactly at the essence of it and being actually the humility of not knowing.

573
00:57:18,760 --> 00:57:25,080
Knowledge comes from not knowing. It doesn't come from knowing, but we also just don't accept the status quo necessarily.

574
00:57:25,680 --> 00:57:35,640
Exactly. The challenge. Challenge? Yes. Should early career researchers focus primarily on learning latest tools, or more important,

575
00:57:36,360 --> 00:57:41,000
to understand perhaps the underlying principles and the rules of the game?

576
00:57:41,240 --> 00:57:46,000
We probably need both. New tools are not useful unless you have an interesting question to ask.

577
00:57:47,120 --> 00:57:51,520
They don't have much value. You do need to understand the environment you operate within.

578
00:57:52,760 --> 00:57:57,440
Unless you want to work on your own, which is also completely acceptable for some project or for some fields.

579
00:57:58,040 --> 00:58:01,840
But it all depends whether you want to be part of the community and you want to thrive.

580
00:58:02,400 --> 00:58:07,600
You need to know your neighbourhood, right? Sure. Sorry. A little bit of clarification why I ask.

581
00:58:07,880 --> 00:58:13,510
Actually this question is because of the dynamic of the job market because of AI, that things change quite a lot.

582
00:58:14,110 --> 00:58:17,910
If I learn a technique today, perhaps that technique tomorrow is useless.

583
00:58:18,750 --> 00:58:22,550
So it was that logic behind that question. So please keep that in mind.

584
00:58:23,110 --> 00:58:28,390
Transferable skills. But also I think to know which tools are necessary useful.

585
00:58:28,790 --> 00:58:30,950
You need to know why you use certain tools.

586
00:58:31,390 --> 00:58:39,430
So that's I think you need to the knowledge about a certain topic will always be needed because for the moment AI is just like a dummy assistant.

587
00:58:40,470 --> 00:58:44,470
So it needs guidance and to give guidance you need to know what you're doing.

588
00:58:45,710 --> 00:58:48,590
Yeah, you need to know how to ask questions. Yeah, absolutely.

589
00:58:49,150 --> 00:58:58,870
And finally, how can young scientists remain adaptable without constantly feeling that they have to chase every new technology in the age of AI?

590
00:59:00,150 --> 00:59:06,870
Be curious and be focussed. Yeah I agree.

591
00:59:07,230 --> 00:59:12,630
Be creative. think creativity is something that AI so far cannot reproduce.

592
00:59:14,230 --> 00:59:20,350
Think out of the box. I know it sounds like a like a inflated sentence, but really creativity.

593
00:59:21,030 --> 00:59:25,070
Ideas? Yeah, originality. Yeah. Thank you so much.

594
00:59:25,510 --> 00:59:33,750
Is there anything that perhaps I have missed and you want to add as a final comment or a piece of final advice you would have any of you?

595
00:59:34,430 --> 00:59:41,750
So I would like to say one thing to applicants. One thing that is extremely important I would say nowadays is build your network.

596
00:59:42,670 --> 00:59:48,990
Work on your network because other people on LinkedIn, on X, on blue sky that you meet at conferences,

597
00:59:49,670 --> 00:59:53,590
keep in touch with people because that's nowadays in the application system.

598
00:59:54,150 --> 01:00:04,830
It's extremely important. Yeah, for me it would be just take the time to figure out what is it that you want to do and why.

599
01:00:05,430 --> 01:00:12,860
And that's the life project, to be perfectly honest. But that will be reflected in the way you apply and who you're applying with.

600
01:00:13,300 --> 01:00:21,340
And just make sure that the you're interested by the scientific question, but also, by the way, the person you want to be supervised by.

601
01:00:21,900 --> 01:00:26,980
Address that question. I always think that it's much easier to find answers than to find good questions.

602
01:00:29,100 --> 01:00:32,420
Yeah. Thank you both for your time and also for the advice.

603
01:00:32,860 --> 01:00:35,900
I personally learn quite a lot and I am grateful for that.

604
01:00:36,500 --> 01:00:42,020
Thank you. Audience for joining and if you have been that far, it's really great and it's very important.

605
01:00:42,660 --> 01:00:50,740
Things change quite a lot and very quickly. And therefore this educational discussion helps us to perhaps keep the pace at least.

606
01:00:51,580 --> 01:00:54,860
Thank you and hope to see you in the next episode. Thank you.

607
01:00:55,220 --> 01:00:57,420
Thank you everyone. Thank you very much. Bye bye.