The holidays are around the corner, but before you head off into finals and break, we have one more webinar this year that will help you get tackle the challenges of graduate school.

Pressured to write papers and don’t know how to get started? Learn to knock down the barriers to publishing research.

Topics covered include: the purpose of a publication, choosing a journal, authorship issues, planning; parts of the paper and their importance, display of data, and specifics of effective scientific writing. This is part 1 from a popular talk at WE13 and we’re giving folks who were not able to make it a chance to attend.
​
Webinar Date: 10AM ET on Wednesday December 4th
Speaker Bio:

Donna L. Vogel, M.D., Ph.D. is the Director of the Professional Development Office,Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. She graduated from Bryn Mawr College, and the Medical Scientist Training Program at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Her Ph.D. is in developmental biology, and her clinical subspecialty is endocrinology. She worked at NIH for 25 years, initially as a clinical fellow conducting clinical and basic research. Dr. Vogel managed a grant  program for 13 years, and then became the first Director of an office dedicated to enhancing the professional experience for postdoctoral fellows. She joined the Professional Development Office in 2007. She has an ongoing interest in career development and mentoring for students, postdocs, and early-career scientists.
​
Registration Link: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/310582426

Don’t forget to download the WE13 Mobile App now to stay updated on all the events and sessions in Baltimore. The app can be downloaded directly from the Google Play Store for Android users and the App Store for those with Apple iOS devices. Very useful for making your schedule and browsing session offerings.
One session I wanted to highlightin this post is on Saturday morning at 10 am in BCC 333. The session is “Networking in Academic Settings: Tips for Navigation Research Conferences Throughout Graduate School and Beyond” with presenters Richard (Ric) Weibl,director of the Center for Careers in Science and Technology and director of the Project on Science, Technology, and Disability at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Janet Bandows Koster, executive director and chief executive officer of the Association for Women in Science (AWIS).
There are a lot of great sessions planned and sometimes it is hard to decide on just one to attend.  I encourage you to talk with other conference attendees to trade knowledge from what you learned by attending different sessions. It is impossible for one person to go to every session they are interested in so divide and conquer, split up from friends and meet back up later in the day to share notes and what you learned and ask questions about the sessions other people attended.  This is an easy way to Network at WE13!
Here are specific sessions coordinated for grad students by grad students (plus a couple other sessions strongly geared toward grad student population) to consider adding to your schedule.


Day; Time; Room; Track Session

Thursday Oct 24; 10-11:15; BCC 335; Academics & Graduate Students; How to Effectively Communicate Data & Research Results

Thursday Oct 24; 10-11:15; BCC 324; Careers in Government and Military; Not Engineering as Usual: Career Opportunities for Engineers in Policy

Thursday Oct 24; 10-12:00; BCC 334; Academics & Graduate StudentsGraduate School Networking

Thursday Oct 2411:30-12:45BCC 318-323Mega SessionOvercoming the Imposter Syndrome

Thursday Oct 24; 1:30-2:30; BCC 328; Careers in Government and Military; Government Jobs with a Graduate Degree

Thursday Oct 24; 4-5:00; BCC 333; Academics & Graduate Students; Graduate Rapid Fire 1

Friday Oct 25; 10-11:15; BCC 334; Academics & Graduate Students; Graduate Rapid Fire 2

Friday Oct 25; 2:45-3:45; BCC 314; Career & Life Transitions; Life after the PhD: Career Success in Industrial Research & Development

Friday Oct 25; 2:45-3:45; BCC 335; Academics & Graduate Students; Writing Your First Scientific Publication

Friday Oct 25; 4-5:00; BCC 333; Academics & Graduate Students; Strategies for Obtaining Your First Academic Position

Saturday Oct 26; 10-11:15; BCC 333; Academics & Graduate Students; Networking in Academic Settings: Tips for Navigating Research Conference Throughout Graduate School and Beyond

Saturday Oct 26; 10-11:15; BCC 332; SWE Leadership and Business Meetings; Graduate Student Involvement in SWE Sections

Saturday Oct 26; 10-11:15; BCC 325; Academics & Graduate Students; NSF Graduate Fellowships

Saturday Oct 26; 1:30-2:30; BCC 325; Academics & Graduate Students; Global Opportunities for Graduates and Post Graduates

Saturday Oct 26; 1:30-2:30; BCC 326; Academics & Graduate Students; The Role of Mentoring in Academia: An Invaluable tool at every level

Saturday Oct 26; 1:30-2:30; BCC 333Career & Life Transitions; Strategies for the Academic Job Search

Saturday Oct 26; 2:45-3:45; BCC 330; Academics & Graduate Students; Industry Career with a Master’s Degree

Saturday Oct 26; 2:45-3:45; BCC 333; Academics & Graduate Students; Comparing and Contrasting Research Positions in Academia, Industry, and Government

Saturday Oct 26; 2:45-3:45; BCC 325; Academics & Graduate Students; Applying to Graduate School in Engineering

A couple of weeks ago, during an annual conference for biomedical engineers, I attended a luncheon for women in the field. The event was primarily attended by female graduate students, some undergraduate students, and maybe a few faculty or other professionals, all women who were either in biomedical engineering or in a related STEM field.
The luncheon started out like any other– delicious (and very healthy) food was served, students mingled, and a speaker was introduced. She was a personal brand strategist, and she was there to help us all learn to build our own irresistible personal brands. Each of our seats at the table included a worksheet as well, so that we could begin to evaluate ourselves and build our brands as the speaker presented its different aspects. It was interactive, and it was definitely very helpful. While gender biases and institutional cultures and policies are still the biggest obstacles to women advancing in STEM fields, improving our branding can go a long way towards finding success. Considering that most of us in the audience were young scientists, still students, still learning, it was especially important that we learn now how to create our own personal brand, to make a stronger impact, be more unique, and have a more powerful influence.
The speaker started off well enough. She defined a ‘brand’, showed us what can define us in a negative light, and what can define us in a positive light. She asked us to find our strengths, then sell them. She then moved on to defying stereotypes; in our case, this meant creating a brand that showed a more colorful engineer, highlighting our hobbies, etc. At least, that is the message that I believe she meant to convey.
To emphasize her point, she showed us an example of a woman who had created a very successful personal brand. Up on the screen we see a cheerleader, a beautiful, athletic young woman wearing the typical attractive uniform. The audience is confused; who is she, and why is she relevant?
She is an NFL cheerleader and a PhD candidate in bioengineering.
The speaker then lists a few biographic facts about the cheerleader: biomedical engineering is her passion, but dancing is her dream, and she has found an amazing way to do both. Why was she relevant here? The speaker excitedly shows that here is a woman who has created such a “unique” image for herself, by being this beautiful engineer who is also a cheerleader, a job that is rarely associated with science, research, or academia. Her outgoing, bright spirit makes her stand out, and her ability to pursue dancing/cheerleading while being an engineer is commendable. No one doubts this.
Somehow, however, the audience was not pleased by this. The room filled with uneasy murmurs, raised eyebrows and frowns. The speaker halted for a moment, and someone in the audience raised her hand. Up until now, no one had asked any questions, only answered the speaker’s questions. The audience member asked: “I’m curious, can you tell us why you picked her as an example of personal branding?” The speaker was confused. Someone else spoke up, a little less politely: “She’s wondering — well, I think we’re all wondering — why you decided to use this picture as an example of personal branding for engineers.” Everyone nodded, clearly glad that someone had thought to ask the uncomfortable question.
The speaker was taken aback. She answered that she thought that this was a good example of personal branding because it was “atypical”. With that, she quickly moved on, stifling any potential follow-up questions or discussions.
It was too late, though. She had lost her audience. The rest of the talk continued completely uninterrupted, but without the rapt attention and silence that was the first half of the luncheon. Conversations started up everywhere, and when the speaker ended, it took a rather awkward 10 seconds before everyone realized she was done and applauded.
——-
Some of you may have been at this luncheon. Some of you may have already heard of or even know the cheerleader given as an example. I mention this event not because I think there is anything strange or wrong with what she does; on the contrary, I agree with the speaker that she is definitely very talented and interesting, and deserves praise for pursuing both her dreams. Most of the audience there will agree with that too.
I write about this event because something clearly disturbed the audience, and the speaker was utterly nonplussed. There was a clear disconnect between her and the audience of female engineers; some of the audience members were maybe even offended. Was the speaker telling us that we should shed whatever image we have and become a beautiful, athletic woman who can fit the stereotype of what is popular? Maybe it was the picture of her in her cheerleading outfit, not in her lab coat, and the brief bio highlighting her dreams, favorite song, and love of dancing, rather than her accomplishments or technical interests.
Part of it was possibly what she was implying about engineers: that we are uninteresting, or less attractive, or socially awkward, etc., everything used to describe the stereotypical engineer “nerd”. For us, particularly as women, to be successful, our personal brand apparently has to be the non-engineer, something that emphasizes our other hobbies, so that we might be more likeable and attractive to the rest of the world. Showing off our scientific knowledge or fascination with our engineering work isn’t attractive–instead, we need to be something else on the outside. Nowhere in her slides about personal branding did the speaker mention intelligence, research aptitude, or scientific curiosity as strengths to be emphasized and included in our brand.
Still, perhaps she isn’t entirely to blame. She called the cheerleading PhD candidate “atypical” and therefore a good example, and the audience took offense to that. Would we have been as put off if she used a different dancer as her example—say, a ballerina? Or a different type of athlete, such as a soccer player? Or maybe still the NFL cheerleader, but in her lab coat or in a research setting? While the speaker failed to give a good explanation for her example, it doesn’t necessarily mean her example was a bad one. By being shocked, were we just revealing our conditioning of what a woman engineer should be?
I’m curious to hear everyone’s thoughts. How would you have reacted, as a member of the audience? Or, what would you have done if you were the speaker?