Landing a faculty position: Erin Jimenez

This week, Ling Loh from the Career Development subcommittee interviewed Erin Jimenez from Johns Hopkins University. 

On job applications

Ling: What is your career trajectory?

Erin: My career path has been relatively traditional. I started at a community college, transferred to University of California, Los Angeles, and then went straight into a PhD program at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). After my PhD, I did a postdoc at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda. This postdoc lasted about eight years, partly due to the pandemic, some delays, and initial intimidation around the job application process.

I was on the job market for two years (2021–2022). In the first year, I submitted 19 applications, had three interviews, and received no offers—I didn’t even have preprints at the time. If I had received an offer, I would have accepted it.

In the second year, I submitted 47 applications, had 12 in-person interviews, and ultimately received five job offers. I attribute the success to publishing my paper which was in pre-print during the first round of applications. I decided to accept a position at JHU, partly influenced by my husband’s business location.

Ling: How long did it take you to start preparing materials for your applications and to eventually land a faculty position?

Erin: For the first round, it took several weeks to refine everything. At NIH, I was part of a writing group cohort where we peer-reviewed each other’s applications, which was very helpful. The deadline was relatively tight, so I had to gather and perfect materials while continuing my experiments—no time off from the bench.

For the second round, I made some updates to correct errors and improve clarity. I also used the Future PI Slack and shared my application with many people for feedback, while also reading other applications to learn effective approaches. This helped me improve writing, catch grammatical errors, and refine the overall presentation, especially since not everyone is naturally eloquent on paper, like myself.

Ling: Did you always aim for an R1 or R2-level university while applying?

Erin: I primarily focused on R1 institutions, since my main goal was to continue doing research at a high level. I did explore positions at primarily undergraduate institutions, such as Towson University in Maryland, and even had a Zoom interview, but quickly realized it wasn’t the right fit for me. The teaching load at that institution was equivalent to a full year, which conflicted with my desire to maintain an active R1-level research program.

I also considered medical schools with minimal teaching, but in those cases, the salary structure and grant expectations differed—my current institution covers 70% of salary during the year and 30% in the summer, which requires some teaching, whereas other places required two R01s for a position, compared to only one at JHU. Family location was another factor I considered in evaluating fit.

Ling: How did you tailor your application materials (CV, research statement, teaching statement, diversity statement) for different types of institutions?

Erin: I started by researching each university thoroughly—looking at their graduate programs, summer research experiences for undergraduates (REU/URP), and courses I might potentially teach. The goal was to make each application personal and show genuine interest.

For the diversity statement, I checked the department’s website to see if their initiatives were active, not just symbolic. I took detailed notes early on, and if I was offered an interview, I went back to these notes to create bullet points tailored to that institution.

Zoom pre-meetings were initially very stressful—I almost fainted during one of the first-round meetings. For the second round, I used two monitors: one for Zoom and one for notes, and I rehearsed extensively.

Some of the questions I got included “What are you most proud of?”, “What paper have you read recently?”, and “Describe your aims in your first grant proposal.”

I wrote down questions and potential answers specific to each university but practiced enough to avoid sounding robotic, focusing on speaking naturally, smiling, showing interest, and being personable.

Ling; Were there any resources (websites, workshops, mentors, etc.) that were especially helpful in preparing your materials?

Erin: One of the most helpful resources was talking with my postdoc PI. At first, I hadn’t spoken with him much as often as I would have liked—I was shy and rarely went to his office to just chat. It wasn’t until I was on the market when I made the effort to sit down with him more regularly, that I realized how much I could soak up his knowledge. He was very skilled at articulating ideas and helped me rehearse my talks and application materials, especially in framing the big picture—what I want to do and why it matters.

I also sought advice from other investigators in the field who are strong communicators. Observing and absorbing how they present themselves and structure their ideas was incredibly valuable for improving my own clarity and confidence.

Ling: Are there any particular organizations, listservs, or websites you would recommend for finding job openings?

Erin: I used Twitter extensively—copying the link, university name, and application link into an Excel sheet and sorting by due date to keep organized. I also signed up for LinkedIn and Nature Careers, which provide updates on new postings. Additionally, my postdoc mentor sent me any opportunities he found, which was very helpful for staying informed about relevant positions.

On interviews

Ling: What advice would you give applicants regarding the first-round (remote) interviews?

Erin: Strategically, it helps to describe your research succinctly—for example, in five minutes. A simple visual slide can work well, such as a picture with words, highlighting three major approaches, and three key takeaways from your postdoc research. This should also include how your research at the new institution will build on these points. It’s important to end on a positive note, such as describing how your lab’s future projects will rely on these approaches, and outline short- and long-term goals, demonstrating a realistic understanding of how to achieve them. For grants, it’s useful to familiarize yourself early with funding opportunities for new PIs—such as NIH R01 or R35, National Science Foundation programs—and know which institutes you would target. Even if you aren’t fully ready to submit, understanding the landscape shows preparation and foresight.

Some common questions include:

Describe your research in five minutes. I would suggest to focus on clarity and being concise, for example by highlighting three major approaches and three key takeaways from your postdoctoral work. 

Describe your research highlights. Emphasize what makes your work significant and fundable, and include any novel techniques, high-impact findings, or unique approaches to leave a strong impression.

Describe your research focus at the new institution. First, outline how your research will build on your past work, identify main scientific questions you plan to pursue. Additionally, specify the personnel required to execute these projects.

Why is this department a good fit? Mentioning aspects like diversity within the department or alignment with the department’s focus can help.

• Discuss how your research complements existing work—e.g., at NIH, you had to focus on clinical relevance but now can pursue basic science.

• Have a list of potential collaborators in the department.
• Highlight core centers or facilities you could leverage (e.g., sequencing, high-throughput phenotyping, genomics cores)

What do you foresee your contributions to the department to be? Explain what you bring to the table (e.g., single-cell technology, big data integration, bench expertise.). Show that the department is a good investment in your success, which benefits both parties.

What is your approach to education and outreach? Describe how you will mentor the next generation of scientists. For example, you can outline a teaching plan: undergraduate and graduate courses, potential new courses you could develop.

How will you participate in promoting diversity in science? Highlight any experience you have in mentoring underrepresented groups or leading diversity-focused programs. Showing how you will contribute to inclusive training and recruitment in STEM can be a plus.

In general, it’s okay to make small mistakes; confidence and preparation matter more than perfection. Practice extensively—confidence improves with rehearsal.

Ling: What helped you prepare for your job talk and chalk talk? 

Erin: Preparation was challenging, especially because most practice sessions were on Zoom—there wasn’t a formal, in-person board-style session initially. Over two years, I practiced extensively, including one in-person and one Zoom chalk talk. I felt I did much better in the second year.

The key is to present in a way that makes sense to you and follows your logical reasoning. Structurally, I treated it like an R01 grant: start with a title, three specific aims, and background, then include a picture of the model system and what I wanted to study. While speaking, I drew diagrams to illustrate the approaches, the tools needed (e.g., 10X Genomics), and the personnel required (e.g., technician or rotation student for repetitive tasks).

Chalk talk practice online, especially with guidance from NIH postdoc mentors, was invaluable for refining my wording and flow. On the actual day, I kept a watch or timer to ensure I finished my answers on time.

Ling: Were there any questions during your interviews that you wish you had prepared for differently?

Erin: A challenge was balancing respectfulness and professionalism. Some interviewers can get off track or dominate the conversation, and it is okay to assert yourself politely. I tend to be quiet, but during interviews, it’s important to practice speaking up confidently so that your points are heard and taken seriously.

Ling: Were you asked about your personal life? If yes, how did you tackle that question?

Erin: Technically, these questions should not be asked, but they sometimes come up in person. By the second interview, these questions can become more serious.

The best approach is to focus on one topic at a time and respond strategically. One tactic is to mirror the question back to the interviewer or answer only what is necessary, maintaining professionalism while protecting your privacy.

Ling: Were you asked to teach a class? Was that planned ahead or were you put on the spot?

Erin: Teaching expectations were generally known during the second interview process. In the first interview, they discussed responsibilities in general but nothing was fixed. In my case, I was expected to teach half of a graduate course and half of an undergraduate course.

It is helpful to know the teaching expectations by the time of your interview, but timing and framing matter. For example, asking directly about responsibilities early in a Zoom interview can unintentionally give the impression that you are reluctant to take on responsibilities. I think a better approach is to ask broader questions about how teaching, research, and service are balanced in the department or what kinds of teaching opportunities are available to new faculty. Even in departments where new PIs are officially “protected” from heavy service, committees still expect participation, so being prepared to contribute while showing genuine curiosity about expectations will reflect positively. 

On your transition to your current faculty role

Ling: What does a “day in your life” in your current role look like?

Erin: I am now in my third year and looking back, the first year was particularly challenging. I cared about everything and wanted to do everything myself but quickly realized I had to prioritize and decide what to focus on, letting go of tasks that weren’t essential. Even though it can feel uncomfortable, dropping some responsibilities is necessary to avoid burnout.

Managing a lab involves finances and team selection, including making tough decisions like letting someone go. You often feel hopeful and optimistic, but sometimes things don’t turn out as planned, which is never easy.

At this stage, I rely heavily on my team to carry out research, which can be challenging, especially as a woman in science. I often spend more time at the bench because I find it hard to delegate and ask for help, so trusting others is a skill that takes time to develop.

Balancing work and personal life is also challenging—there are times when I have to make trade-offs, like time for the house, husband, or my cat, to keep everything running smoothly.

Ling: What has been the most surprising thing about starting your faculty position?

Erin: The transition to faculty was more difficult than expected, even though I didn’t have to relocate out of state. Adjusting to new responsibilities, balancing research, teaching, and administrative duties, and learning to trust and manage a team were all challenging.

On the positive side, one of the best aspects has been the financial stability (at least in my state Maryland) that comes with a faculty position, which provides peace of mind and the freedom to focus on long-term research goals.

Ling: What skills do you wish you had developed earlier that would have made the transition smoother?

Erin: I wish I had developed more soft skills, particularly in managing and motivating people, and coaching team members effectively. My experience in sports helped me understand the athlete’s perspective, but applying that to a research team is different.

It’s also important to recognize red flags early in team dynamics or project progress, which is something I still find challenging. Building these skills earlier would have made the transition to managing a lab smoother and less stressful.

Ling: How long did you take to hire your lab members, and what is your strategy to hire? How do you find the right fit?

Erin: For a young lab, hiring often relies on personal networks and word-of-mouth, especially for postdocs. In my first year, I accepted four graduate students, which is not that common. Having a small lab allows me to work one-on-one with students, which makes it easier to assess their strengths, weaknesses, and fit for the team.

I also mentor undergraduate students, though it can be hard to say no, as I often see myself in them. Much of their work involves tasks like genotyping, and I aim to give them meaningful learning experiences.

Ling: Would you be open to early career scientists reaching out to you for advice, and if so, how can they reach out to you? 

Erin: Yes, at jimenez@jhu.edu.