I enjoyed doing projects. For more comments on the projects, please see other questions in this questionnaire. The parts I think there is room for improvements is the obvious need for more guidance and structure. Maybe a one on one consultation early with one of the PI's to brainstorm about projects?! Or a set date for the students to report about projects to the PI's.

Q2: Please comment on the balance of having enough guidance and enough freedom to take your own initiatives in developing your projects at the cluster institutions.
It was well balanced.

Personally, I think it was a good balance.

I did all of my projects at ASU, rather than the cluster institutions. I enjoyed the freedom to take my own initiatives, although there may be others that wish I had more guidance.

No response.

I would like to have a little bit more guidance. I know we discussed many interesting projects in the first phase of PFMF, but I, unfortunately, failed to write them down and thus I forgot many of the possible projects we discussed.

Q3: Please comment on the size and number of expected projects, especially whether you feel it would be better to have fewer projects which would allow for more depth at the price of less diverse experiences.
I think it is good as it is now.

I think considering the time frame we have - one term - would be nice to only try and do two projects rather then three, and focus more on each one. Each project seems to always take more time then you planned it would, establishing communication is slow at start, and I felt I was more running around trying to communicate with people then doing the project. This could be eliminated if only two projects are required. Of course, others might have had different experiences, so I guess it can just be an option.

I think either one big open-ended project or several small projects with limited scope. I choose rather open-ended projects, which became difficult to follow up on as much as I would have liked. Additionally, I found myself being warned by senior faculty that I should be focused on research rather than starting other projects that demand a lot of time.

I think that two projects would be perfect.

It seems as though three projects were in fact a little much since NONE of the PFMF students have yet completed three projects (and the semester is over). Here is my personal proposition: Keep the requirement of three projects, but let the PFMF participants start working on them in the first phase. For instance, make the participants do a memorandum of proposed projects including what material to use, whom to contact, etc. This should be done, at the latest, around midterm the first (i.e. fall) semester. I am NOT proposing that these memos of proposed projects should be written in stone or in other words, it should be possible for the participants to change their projects if that is desired. I believe that the "memo requirement" will make the students think a little bit harder and be more pro-active in their search and planning for projects.

Q4: It seems that many of you had problems setting up meaningful projects within the spring semester. Would you advocate doing projects during the full year of the PFMF experience and hence have the participatory phase and the exploratory phase run simultaneously?
Yes. Many of the projects do not need the exploratory experience to be done.

This can help - it will allow some more time for trial and error - i.e. one might try a certain project, put some time into it, but within a few weeks realize nothing would come of it. Then there would be more time to try and focus on a different idea then just scramble for something meaningless. I think it can also be useful if project ideas were introduced in the context of certain seminar topics that appear in the exploratory phase, a time were students interest and curiosity is stimulated and before they fall prey to exams and "end of the term" fever.

Maybe. I think we needed to see examples of more successful projects. We also needed a clearer understanding of how we should report our projects. This was the first group of six PFMF'ers and we tried to make the best things happen that we could. Hopefully we provided some examples of what to do and also what not to do for future PFMF'ers.

It would be better to do projects during the full year. At least the projects should be chosen in the first semester.

Please see the above response.

Q5: Would you rather have more activities with the University-wide PFF, should we keep the interaction at the level as it is currently or reduce it? In particular, should the joint "Capstone Fair" be continued?
It is just right. And the "Capstone fair" makes me look back and count what I gained during the year. It is good as is.

I think some of the University-wide PFF activities are worthwhile, and would allow us to communicate and possibly develop joint projects with others in other departments. Of course, we all have a tendency to only attend required meetings, but I think few more joint meetings would benefit both groups. The Capstone Fair would be useful if we would have all done all projects by that point. This year it didn't seem like we were all that ready for this. The interesting point is that PFF does this to show the second year participants what kind of projects others have done and offer them some inspiration. But we don't have second year participants.

Either more or less - we got caught somewhere in the middle. No one was really ready for the capstone fair. If there is no interaction with the second-year PFF program prior to the capstone fair, then definitely not.

The activities with PFF would be fine. I think it would be better for us to join "Capstone Fair" together, not individually.

I believe that all of us should have joined the university wide PFF for the Teaching Portfolio/CV meeting(s). I went to both of them (lecture and workshop) and found them very useful for all careers and in particular careers in academia. The joint Capstone Fair should absolutely be continued. This is another chance for practicing presenting your work for many different people, a skill which is useful in every profession.

Q6: Please rate the seminar meetings on a scale from A to E:
a) Job search II

• B
• C - I thought the second Job Search was redundant, but more information rich then the first one. I'd like to just have one Job Search, with the kind of discussion that came out of the Job search II.
• A
• A+
• A

Q7: Would you want more background reading material on the seminars that we organized and would you read it?
No, and I do not think that I would read them.

I think if we can find some material that has less "fluff" in the writing style, it would be more appealing and easier to read then some of the articles we have now. As far as adding more material, we can always have it as reference for possibly later reading.

Yes and yes.

No.

I would have liked to read more on the grant writing. I had some difficulty understanding the ins and outs of where and how grant money is bounced around within the university.

Q8: Did we miss major topics that you think are important for your preparation for a faculty role? What are they?

Nothing in mind.

No.

No.

How to publish a paper.

As mentioned in the answer to question 5, I believe that CV's should have a greater priority. Make use of Dr. Duane Roen who is an expert in the area and a great speaker!

Q9: Would you recommend to other students to take the course in the academic year 2000-2001?
Definitely

Certainly. Overall, I thought it was very useful, in fact I thought we should promote some of our round table discussions as seminars, open to grad students at large.

Again, I would call anyone a fool who would not take this course.

Of course.

I think many Ph.D. students in the math department here at ASU would like to kick me for talking and advocating the benefits about PFMF so much. No, seriously, I believe that PFMF is very valuable and therefore I have tried to convince my friends who were not with me in the PFMF during this passed "virgin" year to sign up for the program during the 2000/2001 semesters.

Q10: Has your perspective about teaching at a Community College, a Liberal Arts College and a University changed and how so. Do you have a specific preference for a career and is that influenced from what you saw this year?
I said this before. I did not know how these colleges operate. I learned a lot about the colleges from participating in PFMF that I would have learned otherwise. I should thank the organizers and the sponsors for that. My choice of career has been influenced in a way that I now have more reasons to say that it is the right choice for me.

I would like to become a university professor someday, working for either a research or comprehensive institution. I certainly had no idea of the differences between university and college teaching before this program. Not of the different types of universities. Math seems to have many venues for research work, and that's really exciting.

Yes, in fact this is the true success of the program. I now have a very clear idea of where I want to be professionally.

No response.

I now see that I probably would enjoy teaching at a Community College or a smaller, non-research 1 university. I am glad that I have had the chance to learn that through PFMF instead of learning it the hard way, getting a job where I would be miserable and thereby maybe leave academia all together.

Please feel free to add any other comment or suggestion.
I would be happy if we learned more about CV and Resume writing (and the differences in more detail).

I think we could advertise the PFMF program better to our grad students - so very few are aware of its existence, and so many would benefit from it. The beginning of the year is a good time for this, but also throughout the year, so that others see what PFMF is doing, have some time to understand the program and think more seriously about getting involved. Thanks for organizing this; it really was an eye opener.