Is it important for postdocs to have a "postdoc mentor"?

Question

I'm in pure math. It seems like "postdoc mentors" are common nowadays in U.S. universities. The idea is that you do a postdoc under the supervision of someone whom you can write papers with. My impression though is that a lot of mathematicians didn't have postdoc mentors. Would it be a bad sign to not have a postdoc mentor? Would it be negative for productivity and developing a publication record and recommendation letters?

Answer 1

It is true that, long ago, when "post docs" were not as numerous as now, there was no idea at all that you'd have a mentor. Rather, even though you'd be a new PhD, you were "an expert". And, also, long ago, joint papers were not so common.

That culture has not disappeared, unfortunately. Yes, in my opinion, sensible people of_course think in terms of mentoring... But this viewpoint is not universal.

Joint papers are a yet-subtler thing: good to have a collaboration, but these days, still, a joint paper with a senior person (in math) may be less of a CV-boost than a solo paper. As an "old person" myself, I try to give useful advice to junior people without trying to get my name on their papers.

EDIT: to answer more of the question, ... letters of recommendation for your next job do need to come from people who have engaged with you. This doesn't have to be a "mentor", though obviously a person who takes that role should be in a good position to write a helpful letter. At least in the old days ^tm, a postdoc's goal was to make a good impression on at least a few senior people in the dept, for letters. Seminar talks were the usual way.

I think the letter-of-recommendation concern is more substantial than "productivity", in saner parts of math. :)

Answer 2

I think there is some confusion about what a "postdoc mentor" is actually supposed to do.

But, to start with, let me just say that I don't think anyone can be successful in an academic career without a mentor. A mentor is supposed to help a mentee go through their career by providing advice on the many things a newly graduated PhD simply cannot know: How to deal with reviewing papers, how applications are read by hiring committees, how to become a mentor to students themselves, how to deal with authorship disputes, how to write grant applications, and many other things. That is what a mentor is supposed to do, and because so many things in academia are sub-discipline-specific, it only makes sense that such a mentor comes from the same sub-discipline.

That often leads to joint papers, but that is a side effect and not the main reason to have a mentor for postdocs. The main reason is simply to ensure that the people we hire into postdoc positions don't fall through the cracks but are successful in their careers!

Answer 3

This depends on the individual and the department that you join, in math, anyway. If there are a few (or a lot) faculty in your specialty and they hold periodic seminars to discuss one another's work, then a mentor probably isn't needed.

But if you still feel a bit shaky in your research ability, then a mentor might help give you a boost. I don't think it would be a bad sign to not have a mentor (or to have one), but you want to make enough faculty contacts and earn the respect of your colleagues so that you get a boost for your next steps.

Of course, there are a lot more joint papers these days than there were in the past. You want the opportunity for collaboration, however you can arrange it.