I am interested in a research career in the natural sciences, so I was eager to read this new guide. Unfortunately, I don't feel that the book addressed any of the questions that I had about the whole process. I am left wondering if the author should have waited until she was further along in her career before she wrote this guide. I also wish that the book was edited better; this was a huge distraction. Frequently, relevant sections are quizzically in the wrong place (e.g., hints to being a postdoc buried in that assistant professor section) that give the book an unpleasant stream of consciousness feel.
The only good thing I can say about this guide is that it is written in a breezy, friendly manner, so it is a quick read. As noted by a previous reviewer, I believe this has to do with the fact that the author never really goes into any depth with any topics. It seems clear that the author based this on her experiences and did not do any research to support her arguments. This was excruciating at times. Given that this was written by a scientist, where are the data or citations to back up the many assertions?
For example,
"I have often found that master's students at universities without a Ph.D. program are better students than master's students at Ph.D.-granting institutions." (Kindle Locations 493-494)
This is a pretty strong *personal* view, and it is one that should never had passed an editor's desk without data to support it. It can only serve to discourage eager Masters students, particularly those working at Louisiana State University.
or
"The discrepancy in women's pay may have more to do with negotiating tactics than sexism" (Kindle Location 2949)
Really? Maybe. I don't know, but this sure seems like something that should be supported by data. It should not just be presented as fact.
Similarly, the book makes up contrived examples or analogies that are, at best, confusing and, at worst, erroneous.
For example,
"Academic requirements should never have to hold you back from your goals of having and planning a family. I once heard a young female associate professor say, "I could never have gotten to where I am if I had kids." At first that gave me pause, but then I realized she didn't have the experience to make such a statement (i.e., she doesn't know how her life would be different with kids because she didn't have any). It wouldn't be okay for her to say, "If I only had one arm, I would never be able to be president." Only listen to people who have had experience to give you guidance." (Kindle Locations 2913-2918)
Huh? How are those comparable? And by this measure, why should we take Dr. Chakrabarty's advice when she is still so early in her career? Does she have the experience necessary to provide advice on getting tenure or eventually reaching full professor?
The book is full of unhelpful broad overviews when it should be focusing on pearls of wisdom. As other reviewers have noted, this books is only relevant for R1 natural science students. For people interested in this narrow career path, other quick reads (e.g., What They Didn't Teach You in Graduate School: 199 Helpful Hints for Success in Your Academic Career, A PhD is not enough) or more complete books (e.g., The Academic's Handbook, The Compleat Academic: A Career Guide) were all more helpful to me. I heartily recommend that the readers look to these other sources for advice and ignore this overly superficial handbook.
Caveat emptor.