Some Baseball Musings on the Last Day of the 2021 Regular Season

Despite some possibilities for drama, there won't be any Game 163 for any teams. (There was late-inning drama in two of the relevant AL games today, and that is why there won't be any of these extra games.)

We (i.e., the Dodgers) have a win-or-go-home Wild Card 'playoff' against the Cardinals on Wednesday. I'll have it on silent at first while I am participating as a panelist in the UCLA math department job-application panel (which I suggested to our department head that we should do, and thankfully we're doing it), and then I'll have sound on for most of the game once the panel is over.

Trea Turner ended up winning the NL battle title handily. I have trouble picking an MVP, because I think the Padres going into the tank will hurt Tatis Jr.'s chances. That said, I still think he merits it, although if we're going to do pure performance after the Padres fall, maybe Juan Soto ultimately was somewhat better overall? The NL Cy Young award is hard to predict, as a lot of votes will get split. Right now, I think it will be Walker Buehler by a nose over Scherzer, Burnes, and Zack Wheeler. Urías will get some down-ballot votes, but despite the gaudy win totals, the other pitchers I mentioned (and some I have not) have been better them him. Jonathan India will when the NL ROY.

In the AL, Ohtani is the MVP. I think Gerrit Cole is a slightly better Cy Young choice than Robbie Ray, who many announcers seem to think is the heavy favorite. He's a good choice, but I think that Cole has been slightly better. Randy Arozarena is technically still a rookie, but I think I need to look more closely at some of the other viable options as well.

Finally, reports of Joey Votto's demise appear to have been greatly exaggerated (although he has changed his hitting style).

Some of my Past Materials Related to Academic Job Applications and Related Things

I've gotten an e-mail from someone indicating that the job-related materials that I have posted have been helpful to them, so this is a good impetus for me to broadcast them again in case others find them useful.

In case it's of interest to those of you on the academic job market (or people with mentees on the market), I have posted some of my materials: (1) a research statement; (2) a teaching statement; and (3) two equity, diversity, and inclusion statements: https://t.co/HDMKUPNTvF

— Mason Porter (@masonporter) November 20, 2019

A Useful Exercise for Junior Scholars on the Academic Job Market

Here is a story and useful exercise for people on the job market for junior faculty positions or postdocs: When I was a postdoc at Georgia Tech, I was asked to go through about 20 postdoc applications for my thoughts on them. This was for the Center for Nonlinear Science in the physics department. (They had already removed about half of the original set of applications, so these were ones that made the cut to still be considered.) I decided that I would try to do it in one hour. It actually took me about two, even while purposely trying to be very fast. Then, in addition to helping the Georgia Tech folks (which was a good thing to do), I asked myself what I noticed about the applications during that intentionally rushed time. I then used those insights to help me improve my application materials.

There are various ways to do such an exercise, and I suspect most people will be doing it without looking at submitted applications in the above way. Gather a set of postdocs in a sufficiently broad field (e.g., "applied mathematics" or even just "mathematics"), as it's a good part of the exercise to see how you evaluate people who are studying topics that are somewhat outside of your expertise. Make sure there is a strict time limit, as you want to see what you notice — both good and bad — about applications in that setting, as it's a realistic setting for how applications are evaluated when it counts. I think you'll pick up some good insights this way, and you can also give each other helpful advice to improve your application materials.

There are various things that we (= senior academics) talk about and give as advice all of the time, but it's good to really try it for yourself. Then you'll see what you notice — both good and bad — in the bundle of applications that you read really quickly.

And, importantly, good luck on your job hunts!

Incidentally, you can find my research statement, teaching statement, and LaTeX file (with drafts of various 'personalization' paragraphs) from my time on the job market, to get my first faculty position, over a decade ago on this Web page

Which 2-Digit Parent Mathematics Subject Classification Should I Pick as my Primary Classification?

Suppose that you are in the situation that I am in terms of Mathematics Subject Classification, as shown in my tweet below (each term corresponds to one of these), and you are now supposed to pick one of these as your primary classification on the job market. (Note that I am not on the job market, but there was a time long ago when I was a junior scientist and I was faced with this situation.) Which one would you pick?

The Mathematics Subject Classification does an "awesome" job of classifying me: https://t.co/chQW9cCotC

This classification ontology is horrible for applied mathematicians in general, and that can really hurt them on the job market. pic.twitter.com/DnYYBI2Muh

— Mason Porter (@masonporter) November 16, 2018

Applied mathematicians face this all the time (though my own research portfolio is a particularly extreme case of MSC failure) on the job market in their job applications for postdoc and faculty positions in mathematics departments in the United States. They forced to submit the standard American Mathematical Society (AMS) cover sheet, and they are then categorized according to an ontology that fails them utterly. It is systematically unfair to applied mathematicians.

The MSC needs to be revamped.

Claim: The Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC) Scheme Needs a Revamping

It's getting to be that time of year: it's the season to look at the dossiers of job applicants.

Every year, when I go through these dossiers, I am reminded at how poorly I fit into the two-digit MSC (Mathematics Subject Classification) scheme, as I my work is split across many of them without any obvious single home. Nonlinear and complex systems (and networks) shows up in the depths of many of the two-digit numbers, without a single obvious parental home. It is very easy for people who work on these (and other) kinds of interdisciplinary topics to fall into the cracks, and the extant MSC scheme and the extreme reliance upon it exacerbates this problem. It needs a revamping.

Simply put, the MSC is very poorly suited for classifying applied mathematicians. And because people have to use an American Mathematical Society (AMS) cover sheet when applying to US math departments and they also have to list MSC numbers on that cover sheet, people who work in such areas are hurt very severely on the academic job market for postdocs and junior faculty positions.

In my early applications, I put the two-digit number 37 ("Dynamical systems and ergodic theory") as my main subject area, but my application then often ended up in the hands of people proving theorems in those areas, and as a dirty applied mathematician I was often sunk at that point. I think that listing 37 in this way was a very serious mistake on my part. Things of course have worked out well in the end — yay, survivorship bias! — and working in between fields is far more fun and rewarding than not doing it, but it can also create an extra hurdle when on the job market, especially because of the major role that the MSC ontology plays in how applicant dossiers are doled out to different people to evaluate (and thus in who is reading the dossier). Thankfully, if it does work out, there is also the potential of benefits from the proverbial first-mover scientific advantage (or, to generalize, an early-mover scientific advantage), but first one has to get to that point and there are extra hurdles in the way.

While now it's more of a cosmetic thing for my personal situation (though other interdisciplinary people have to deal with this serious issue when on the market), this was very frustrating when I was applying for postdocs and my initial faculty jobs, as my application could so easily get siphoned off into the wrong spots and not find the right ones, purely as a result of the MSC ontology, which I was required to use in applications to US math departments as part of the AMS cover sheet.

Update: To illustrate my subject areas, take a look at my MathSciNet listing, although it only indexes a small subset of my papers and it captures a vanishingly small (well, not literally, but take a look on Google Scholar, and you will see that it is a factor of more than 50) fraction of my citations. I don't have a home within the MSC ontology, and most of the two-digit identifiers in which my work is best represented are still in 2017 often not construed to be areas of applied mathematics. Many people are open-minded, but many others are not, and the issues with the current MSC contribute seriously to this problem.

Update: By the way, as of right now, Google Scholar registers 10146 citations to my work. Meanwhile, MathSciNet registers 184 citations. These numbers differ by a factor of approximately 55.14.

Math Postdoc Application Rage Thread

The title box of the math postdoc application rage thread on Reddit is all too real. My job applications were a long time ago, and I still have horrible memories of having to repeat the same damn piece of information on a form too many bloody times. In fact, I still have to do such damn things.