The Coq mailing list

[Jeremy Dawson <Jeremy.Dawson AT anu.edu.au>]

Hi Carl,

I would emphasize absolutely YES to your question
"Should I attempt to signal that
  I've meaningfully engaged with the recipient's research"
Preferably in the first couple of sentences of your email.

Reason: you go on to say "(which I have,
  otherwise I wouldn't be writing to them)"
Unfortunately too many others don't follow that approach.
You must distinguish yourself from those who send a stock email to every 
academic whose email address they can find.

Cheers,

Jeremy

On 18/4/20 4:23 am, Carl Patenaude-Poulin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am a young software developer with a hobbyist's interest in formal 
> methods,
> including and especially Coq. I feel like I've taken what I could from 
> working
> in industry as a software engineer, and I am extremely interested in
> transitioning to a career in research. I am humbly asking for pointers on
> entering the field of PL, Coq and formal methods. I am also trying to adjust
> my judgment with respect to what's realistic and what isn't for me.
>
> My academic pedigree is underwhelming; I have an undergraduate degree with
> middling grades (GPA 3.24/4.00), and do not have research experience. I am
> confident I can do better after maturing for a few years in industry, 
> but I am
> not sure how to best make that case.
>
> The first thing I've tried was cold-emailing a few researchers who I 
> would be
> enchanted to work for/study under. I've consciously aimed too high by 
> writing
> to those whose work I found the most interesting; not coincidentally, 
> lots of
> other people would like to work with them, and I'd imagine they have their
> pick without taking a chance on cold emails from unknown undergraduates. 
> I did
> not receive strong returns, and halted this approach after I saw this bit on
> Philip Wadler's page (http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/phd.html) which
> suggested that I had not been demonstrating sufficient effort in the 
> emails I
> sent:
>
>  >When you apply, pay particular attention to the research proposal. The
>  >purpose of this is not to fix an area of study, but to assess your 
> ability to
>  >select a suitable research problem, to justify why it is interesting, 
> and to
>  >express yourself clearly.
>
> On to some questions:
>
> - The blurb from Wadler's web page implies that cold emails should include a
>    research proposal with a non-trivial amount of detail. Should I pick a
>    problem and start working on it _before_ I apply for a PhD program?
> - What approaches might I use for finding potential advisors that would be
>    open to taking a chance on an unproved student? Surely it would be 
> uncouth
>    to email-blast the >100 authors of papers I've found interesting in 
> the past
>    few years? I don't want to make a bad name for myself when I've not even
>    started working in the field.
> - What should I include in such an email? I could put my CV and/or my
>    undergrad transcript, would that be helpful? Should I attempt to 
> signal that
>    I've meaningfully engaged with the recipient's research (which I have,
>    otherwise I wouldn't be writing to them)?
> - One of my professors from undergraduate once offered to recommend me to a
>    researcher they know, someone I would be enchanted to study under - 
> this is
>    probably a best case scenario, right? I should probably start by pursuing
>    that?
>
> All of my gratitude for your time and attention,
>
> Carl Patenaude-Poulin
> B Eng Software (McGill University)