Academic Movement and Hires, 2012-2013

March 26th, 2013

ed_academic_bigA comment by “Rumor Mill” in the old Nocera thread reminds us that now is a good time to take stock of recent academic poaches and hires. I am certain this list is incomplete; please point out omissions in the comments.

Poaches:
Dan Nocera (MIT to Harvard)
M.G. Finn (Scripps to Georgia Tech)
K.C. Nicolaou (Scripps to Rice)
John Wood (Colorado State to Baylor)
Corey Stephenson (Boston University to Michigan)
Sharon Hammes-Schiffer (Penn State to Illinois)
Kyoung-Shin Choi (Purdue to Wisconsin)
Shih-Yuan Liu (Oregon to Boston College)
Patrick Holland (Rochester to Yale)
Holden Thorp (UNC to WashU, admin)
Andrei Tokmakoff (MIT to Chicago)
Xiaoyang Zhu (UT-Austin to Columbia)
Glenn Micalizio (Scripps Florida to Dartmouth)
Richard McCullough (Carnegie Mellon to Harvard, admin)
Thomas Albrecht-Schmitt (Notre Dame to Florida State)
Vy Dong (Toronto to UC – Irvine)
Phil Castellano (Bowling Green to NC State)
Jeremy Smith (New Mexico State to Indiana)
Adam Braunschweig (NYU to Miami)
Paul Cremer (Texas A&M to Penn State)
Julia Chan (LSU to UT-Dallas)
Brian Shoichet (UCSF to Toronto)
Chulsung Bae (UNLV to RPI)
Scott Snyder (Columbia to Scripps Florida, no Web confirmation yet)
Alexander Deiters (N.C. State to Pitt)
Elizabeth Papish (Drexel to Alabama)
Chuck Wight (Utah to Weber State, admin)

Notable Non-Poach:
Neil Garg staying put at UCLA (despite overtures from NYU and Cornell, we hear. We also hear NYU has struck out on at least one other attempted megapoach.)

New Hires (for 2013):
Yogi Surendranath (MIT)
Adam Willard (MIT)
Steven Malcolmson (Duke)
Jennifer Roizen (Duke)
Amanda Hargrove (Duke)
Ian Tonks (Minnesota)
Jenny Yang (UC – Irvine)
Smaranda Marinescu (USC)
Corinna Schindler (Michigan)
Andrew Ault (Michigan)
Kerri Pratt (Michigan)
Hill Harman (UC – Riverside)
Timothy Newhouse (Yale)
Matthew Lockett (UNC)
Bradley Merner (Auburn)
Joshua Vaughan (Washington)
Paul Bracher (Saint Louis)
Nick Ball (Amherst)
Renee Frontiera (Minnesota)
James Johns (Minnesota)
John Parkhill (Notre Dame)
Jeremiah Gassensmith (UT-Dallas)
Psaras McGreir (Ohio State)
Casey Wade (Brandeis)
John Keith (Pitt, ChemE)
Kristie Koski (Brown)
Leslie Hicks (UNC)
Brad Carrow (Princeton)
Jeff Rinehart (UCSD, awaiting Web confirmation, deferred by 1 year?)
Rebekka Klausen (Johns Hopkins)
Dmitry Peryshkov (South Carolina)
Natalia Shustova (South Carolina)
Loi Do (Houston)
Jason Keith (Colgate)
Johanna Blacquiere (Western Ontario)
Emily McLaurin (Kansas State)
Lei Fang (Texas A&M)
Michael Clift (Kansas)
Fernando Uribe-Romo (Central Florida)
Scott Laughlin (SUNY – Stony Brook)
Ming Ngai (SUNY – Stony Brook)
Emily Pentzer (Case Western)
Sandra Loesgen (Oregon State)
Ksenia Bravaya (Boston U.)
Stephen Burley (Rutgers, senior hire from Eli Lilly)
Benjamin Swarts (Central Michigan)
Kamil Godula (UCSD)
Maciej Walczak (Colorado)
Ryan Hili (Georgia)
Christian Bleiholder (Florida State)
Eugene DePrince (Florida State)
Rylan Lundgren (Alberta)
Zachariah Heiden (Washington State)
Stefano Sacanna (NYU)
Daniel Turner (NYU)
Aaron Van Dyke (Fairfield)
Skye Fortier (UTEP)
Shane Ardo (UC – Irvine)
Maren Buck (Smith)
Yujie Sun (Utah State)
Tim Wencewicz (Washington University)
Nicholas McGrath (Wisconsin – La Crosse)
Josh Vura-Weis (Illinois)
Kenneth Hanson (Florida State)
Sean Roberts (UT – Austin)
Emily Que (UT – Austin)
Abhishek Chatterjee (Boston College)
Charles Mace (Tufts)
Heather Kulik (MIT, ChemE)
Luis Velarde (SUNY – Buffalo)
G. Ekin Atilla-Gokcumen (SUNY – Buffalo)
Bo Li (UNC)
Hannah Shafaat (Ohio State)
Rebecca Taurog (Williams)
Michelle Farkas (UMass – Amherst)
Kabirul Islam (Pitt)
Michael Hilinski (Virginia)
Ed O’Brien (Penn State)
Christopher Uyeda (Purdue)
Jared Delcamp (Ole Miss)
Liang Gao (SUNY – Stony Brook)
Jarrod French (SUNY – Stony Brook)
Jeffrey Warren (Simon Fraser)
Matt Kiesewetter (Rhode Island)
Kang-Kuen Ni (Harvard)

 

This post will be updated by appending names to the bottom of each list.


488 Responses to “Academic Movement and Hires, 2012-2013”

  1. PChem movers Says:

    Andrei Tokmakoff is now at Chicago and Xiaoyang Zhu is now at Columbia.

  2. alex g Says:

    I heard of a bracher fellow who is moving to the Midwest for some reason or another. Can you confirm this?

  3. Paul Says:

    I think he’s returning to tend his family farm in Indiana. Anyway, no department would hire someone to work on origin-of-life chemistry, right? They’d have to be crazy.

  4. Lila Says:

    Have been wondering about this Bracher fellow’s plans, myself. Can you clue in those of us on the outside what these previous comments mean?

  5. Paul Says:

    OK. Editing to add. Standby…

  6. William Tolman Says:

    Also hired at U Minnesota: Renee Frontiera and James Johns (in addition to Ian Tonks, who you listed).

  7. CanadianChemist Says:

    Heard from multiple sources that Kian Tan at BC is moving to UVA and eventually Scott Miller to MIT. Any confirms? Also as someone pointed out on the old thread, Scott Snyder to Scripps (I’ve heard of the southern variety). Lastly I heard a clamor a few months ago that J. Porco @ Boston U was non-poached by one of the big cancer institutes (Sloan in NYC?)

  8. joel Says:

    Jeremiah Gassensmith was hired at UT-Dallas.

  9. Francois Says:

    New hires: Casey Wade (Brandeis)
    http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/chemistry/faculty/wade.html

  10. Hap Says:

    1) I’m not sure why Baylor is an upgrade for John Wood, and why either Cornell or NYU (sorry Paul) would have been an upgrade for Garg.

    2) I can understand (based on Milkshake’s experiences) why Micalizio would move from Scripps-FL to Dartmouth, but I wonder if he would have been better off staying at Yale. (It’s not my frickin’ life, though.)

    3) That heinous school up north seems to be amassing a nice suite of chemistry professors. I saw Schindler give a talk at the Boston ACS, and she did nice work on a reasonably nasty molecule; I hope she didn’t learn Carreira’s personnel skills, though.

  11. Inorg Says:

    It is confirmed Nick Ball (not bell) will be at Amherst. https://www.amherst.edu/people/facstaff/niball

  12. LFK Says:

    Vy Dong, Toronto to UC Irvine

  13. Dave Says:

    Paul Bracher (Saint Louis)? Wow congrats! Origin-of-life chemistry no less.

  14. Matt Says:

    Brad Carrow was hired at Princeton, but it hasn’t been announced on the official website.

  15. Matteo Cavalleri (@physicsteo) Says:

    Also John Keith at University of Pittsburgh: http://www.engineering.pitt.edu/News.aspx?id=2147504328

  16. Howard Says:

    Richard McCullough moved from Carnegie Mellon to Harvard (admin).

  17. rhodium Says:

    Kristie J. Koski is coming to Brown to do materials from a postdoc with Cui at Stanford: http://www.brown.edu/academics/chemistry/news

  18. Michael Shatruk Says:

    Thomas Albrecht-Schmitt moved from Notre Dame to Florida State

  19. Michael Shatruk Says:

    New hires at Florida State University:
    Christian Bleiholder
    Eugene DePrince

  20. Inorg Says:

    Maren Buck (Wisc, phd, caltech Postdoc) will be at Smith College

  21. Inorg Says:

    Fernando Uribe-Romo was hired at University of Central Florida

  22. Paul Says:

    Thanks for the info, everyone. I’ll update the list as new info comes in.

  23. Dani Says:

    Rebekka Klausen was hired by Johns Hopkins

  24. DavidDFord Says:

    Rebekka Klausen (Jacobsen PhD, Nuckolls postdoc) will be starting at Johns Hopkins this summer

  25. Paul Says:

    Also, everyone should check out Jess the Chemist’s awesome academic family tree of chemists on Twitter:

    http://theorganicsolution.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/my-academic-family-ii/

  26. Prospective PhD Says:

    Talked to Carrow this past recruitment weekend at Princeton => definitely hired

  27. Sara Says:

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/may/27/ucsd-loses-three-star-scientists-rice/

    Wolynes, Onuchic, Levine UCSD – > Rice.

  28. NitrileElectrophile Says:

    A few notables from Northwestern:

    New Hires
    Danna Freedman – MIT
    David Harris – Harvard
    Toru Shiozaki – U Stuttgart

    Poached
    Milan Mrksich from Chicago

  29. Anonymous Says:

    @NitrileElectrophile – those are not THIS year’s hires. At least the first two started last year

  30. Anonymous Says:

    Good list, Keep on updating it!

    Guy Bertrand from Riverside to UCSD.

  31. Anonymous Says:

    Julia Chan from Louisiana State to UT Dallas

  32. Anonymous Says:

    Paul Cremer from Texas A&M to Penn State

  33. NitrileElectrophile Says:

    But it says at the top 2012-2013 :-)

  34. Ear to the Ground Says:

    Mike Clift is a new hire at University of Kansas

  35. Anonymous Says:

    Lei Fang, PD in the Bao group, is moving to Texas A&M

  36. Anonymous Says:

    Emily McLaurin (phd, Nocera MIT, postdoc, Gamelin Washington) to Kansas State University
    http://www.k-state.edu/chem/downloads/ksu_chemistry.pdf

  37. Anonymous Says:

    I’m curious to see who the new hires will be at these places that I know were hiring: Washington State University, UHawaii (2 inorganic positions), Temple, U Houston, UT Austin, Penn State, UCLA, and a few others… Keep on updating this list!

  38. Ian Tonks Says:

    Loi Do (Lippard PhD, Bercaw PD) is starting at U Houston;
    Jason Keith (Goddard PhD, LANL PD) is starting at Colgate;
    Johanna Blacquiere (Fogg PhD, Mayer PD) is starting at Western Ontario.

  39. Paul Says:

    I’ll have a big update by noon tomorrow. Tons of info coming in through comments, Twitter, and e-mail. Thanks, everyone!

    Also, traffic for the site has been extraordinarily high. On par with what you see around the Nobel announcement. I guess this subject interests a few of you? 😉

  40. vilsmeier haack Says:

    Scott Snyder to Scripps (Jupiter)

  41. Paul Says:

    How solid is that Snyder news? What is the timeframe? Why on Earth would he leave Columbia?

    Also, people keep bringing up Stoltz to Germany or somewhere else, and as far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing solid about that story. It’s just talk.

  42. vilsmeier haack Says:

    @Paul

    My Inside sources from Columbia say it’s 50/50. Scripps has money.

  43. vilsmeier haack Says:

    finalized by end of April

  44. vilsmeier haack Says:

    Also, Danishefsky is completely transitioning to Sloan-Kettering

  45. a Says:

    Braunschweig in a somewhat acrimonious move from nyu to miami
    http://www.as.miami.edu/chemistry/people/AdamBraunschweig.html

  46. Hap Says:

    1) Who poached Prof. Mrksich?

    2) I didn’t Scripps FL had tenure, and even if it did, I wouldn’t think it could compare well with Columbia. Money only gets you so far (though the cost of living and probably pay could be lower, most of the research inputs wouldn’t be lower in cost).

  47. Connect the Dots Says:

    Paul, is it coincidence that Stoltz is no longer a chaired professor and currently on “an extended leave of absence”?

  48. Bertrand Guillaume Says:

    Natalia Shustova and Dmitry Peryshkov at University South Carolina.

    a very definition of Power-couple in chem research :)

  49. Underground Says:

    Snyder is leaving because he didn’t get tenure at Columbia

  50. James Says:

    Congratulations Paul. I’m glad to hear that your blogging pastime as chemistry’s squeaky wheel did not make you completely unhireable.

  51. vilsmeier haack Says:

    @underground, Snyder DID get tenure. That’s what has all of Columbia Chemistry puzzled

  52. NitrileElectrophile Says:

    @Hap

    Mrksich is now at Northwestern.

  53. a Says:

    Stoltz: Endowed full profesor chair, 2009
    http://web.archive.org/web/20091115110618/http://www.cce.caltech.edu:16080/faculty/stoltz/

    Stoltz: Merely Professor, 2013?
    http://www.cce.caltech.edu/faculty/stoltz/

    Was the endowment for a limited time (unlikely), or was it awarded to someone else, or……

  54. CanadianChemist Says:

    @vilsmeir haack,
    Sources in his group say otherwise…

  55. val Says:

    I also hear from sources in his group that Snyder didn’t get tenure, but he’s appealing…

  56. BobbyV Says:

    @Hap: Wood went to Colorado St. for personal reasons; perhaps Baylor has a similar draw? And word is that Micalizio left Yale because they wouldn’t consider him for early tenure.

    As for Snyder, rumors abound about issues at Columbia… would love to know what’s happening there…

  57. Hap Says:

    NE: OK, that makes sense. Thank you.

    BV: CSU has a pretty decent organic department, though, so even if the reasons were personal, it still seemed to work OK (though I’m not Prof. Wood). I don’t know what Baylor’s strength is, but I didn’t think it was orgo. Leaving Yale might not be bad, anyway, though I can see schools being hesitant to give tenure early. And Columbia…being in NYC is nice, but I don’t know why trying to make a school keep you that doesn’t want you is going to go well. The contrast between the tenure processes of Snyder and Sames is interesting, unfortunately.

  58. Nick Says:

    Lists Associate Prof on his website:

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/chemistry/groups/snyder/index1.htm

    He started in 2006 so right about now would be tenure decision time. Can one be promoted to Assoc. Prof. w/o tenure as a kind of consolation prize? Is that common?

    I hope he gets tenure – very good chemist and a nice fella.

  59. Nick Says:

    Just saw “Assoc. Prof. without tenure July 2011” on his CV……

  60. anon Says:

    Wood, Nicolaou, and anyone else moving to Texas is moving to take advantage of cprit (Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas) money. Wood has been worried about money for some time.

  61. Hap Says:

    Why would Caltech play the “hide the chair” game with Stoltz? I thought that he did good work, and while they’ve got organometallic, aren’t they short in organic?

    I wonder how you figure economic stability into a poaching decision (is Europe (Germany), California, or the US most likely to melt down financially before I can move again?).

  62. Anonymous Says:

    So, Paul, do you have any more big updates? I am curious to see this list continue to grow!

  63. Follow Up Says:

    http://sites.weinberg.northwestern.edu/thomson/

  64. Paul Says:

    Just updated. Thanks for the info, all.

    In cases where information on the Web confirms these moves, I’ve provided a link. If I have received info from a trusted source, that move has been listed as solid. I’ve listed a few moves from the comments that are from anonymous sources. I would be skeptical of this info, and I’ll delete it this weekend if I have not received confirmation for each of these entries from a person I trust.

  65. Anon Says:

    Word on the street is that Scripps FL professors have to cover their entire salary in grants each year.
    Tough situation

  66. Anonymous Says:

    Does anyone have info on the chemical biologist hire at UCSD?

  67. Anonymous Says:

    Does anyone have info on the chemical biologist hire in Chem. Department at UCSD?

  68. Anonymous Says:

    Word on the street is that Scripps FL professors have to cover their entire salary in grants each year.
    Tough situation

    Micalizio noted in a recent seminar I attended that the funding situation for synthesis was very tough. Easy to see why he moved back to a traditional university setting.

  69. wolfie Says:

    And you really think that scientific progress would work just like in your head ??

    Paul ?

  70. wolfie Says:

    Pure science is an illusion. Just like A+++es at school..

  71. wolfie Says:

    How much would it cost, Paul, to apply for one of the Assistant Professorships at schools you are naming ?

  72. On Accuracy | ChemBark Says:

    […] A Blog About Chemistry & Chemical Research « Academic Movement and Hires, 2012-2013 […]

  73. OSN Says:

    Braunschweig moved to Miami bc his wife (Amy Scott) also got a position there.

  74. Paul Says:

    Relevant:

  75. Cornellian Says:

    Fernando Uribe-Romo (UCLA phd, then Cornell postdoc) got hired by University of Central Florida.

  76. See Arr Oh Says:

    Dunno if it helps, but I charted out all the recent moves Paul noted:
    http://justlikecooking.blogspot.com/2013/03/chemistry-bumper-cars-ii.html

    Just seven months earlier, we had another 10 moves. That’s 24 in just the last year.
    http://justlikecooking.blogspot.com/2012/09/chemistry-bumper-cars.html

  77. Paul Says:

    Also related:

    http://andre-the-chemist.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-hires-list-over-at-chembark.html

    And I take some flak in the post, too.

  78. Orthogon Says:

    This post reminds me of a psychology academic jobs wiki where applicants upload new listings and update as they get phone interviews, on-campus interviews, offers, etc. If nothing else, it’s nice to have all of the job ads together on one site:

    http://psychjobsearch.wikidot.com/

    Something like this would be really useful for chemists. Would you have time to put something like this together for next fall? If not, perhaps Chemjobber?

  79. bad wolf Says:

    Maybe there’s still time for andre to change his site to andre-the-passive-aggressive-backhand-complementing-chemist.blogspot.com

  80. a Says:

    Braunschweig moved to Miami bc his wife (Amy Scott) also got a position there.

    You have the cart before the horse there I’m afraid. Can’t say more……

  81. Anonymous Says:

    nothing finalized, but Rice still trying hard to get Kiessling… would be a two-body problem too

  82. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    I’m surprised to see rumors about Scott Snyder not getting tenure in the above comments. I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but I would bet a paycheck that he has/soon will be awarded tenure. He has done outstanding, high profile work. If Columbia were really letting him go (and again, I highly doubt it), he should have no shortage of job offers.

    Columbia has an old-school promotion system in which faculty are promoted to associate professor without tenure and are then awarded tenure the following year. Also – the official aspect of tenure decisions are slow. They generally have to percolate through the department, the upper administration, and then probably to Columbia’s board of trustees in this case. These things take time (6-8 months at my institution) – it’s not appropriate to change your title on your CV prior to it being official.

    Now, as to why he’d want to go to Scripps Florida? No idea – would appear to be a downgrade. The Scripps business model seems predicated on endless year-over-year increases in the NIH budget. Thus, it will not surprise me to see further defections from both the La Jolla and Florida sites in coming years.

  83. Anonymous Says:

    Ksenia Bravaya to BU per Anna Krylov group webpage.

  84. David Says:

    Brian Shoichet from UCSF to University of Toronto ( http://www.pharmacy.utoronto.ca/sites/default/files/upload/alumni_and_friends/Rxcellence%20Spring%202013.pdf )

  85. andre Says:

    @Paul: That flack in my post was all good-natured ribbing to be sure.

    Additionally, using my powers of insomnia, I did the (lazy) analysis of the change in ranking associated with each move that you listed because, you know, people like the juicy, meaningless details of the gossip. You can find it here if interested.

  86. See Arr Oh Says:

    Did we catch Noah Burns at Stanford?
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/burnslab/

    Stephen Burley, Lilly to Rutgers:
    http://chem.rutgers.edu/introducing-professor-stephen-k-burley

    Chulsung Bae, UNLV to Rensselaer
    http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem/

  87. Luis Says:

    Sandra Loesgen (Oregon State)
    http://chemistry.oregonstate.edu/loesgen

  88. val Says:

    Yeah, being promoted to associate without tenure means nothing–it’s the typical progression for most Ivys. Adds to how grueling the whole process is…and it’s a shame, departments would greatly benefit from infusing young, creative blood into departments, rather than just with tiny drips.

  89. Hap Says:

    The link for McGreir points to Gassensmith, I think (I can’t actually see the Twitter link but it’s named Gassensmith so…).

  90. Barney Says:

    New chemistry hires at Stony Brook:
    Scott Laughlin
    Ming Ngai

  91. NitrileElectrophile Says:

    This just showed up on my Facebook newsfeed:

    Emily Pentzer = new hire at Case Western
    http://www.case.edu/artsci/chem/faculty/pentzer/

  92. Nicole Sampson Says:

    Stony Brook hires confirmed – on our web site soon

  93. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    Noah Burns was hired by Stanford last year – he’s already there.

  94. Paul Says:

    Another round of updates added. Still working on verification of others.

  95. See Arr Oh Says:

    @SGL – Noah Burns’ website states he joined Stanford Fall 2012.

    If we’re tracking Nicolaou, Finn, and Nocera in this conversation, we should include Burns in that time frame.

  96. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    The new hire list (at least right now) is covering those who just accepted employment – this year’s junior faculty hiring cycle. Burns is in the last one, along with many others not listed.

  97. David Says:

    Ryan Hili to University of Georgia
    Scott Laughlin came from Ming Ngai’s lab, you should correct your list.

  98. EC Says:

    I think the “Brian Stoltz move to Germany” rumour was prompted by Stoltz actually applying + being invited to attend an interview for an open Professor position in a German University. AFAIK, he didn’t show up for that particular interview.

    On the other hand, and again AFAIK, Tobias Ritter may still be considering an offer to move to Max-Planck in Germany. That would be a relatively big poach from the European side.

  99. joel Says:

    Just to settle accounts, here is a public source for Gassensmith going to ut-dallas:

    http://www3.nd.edu/~smithgrp/doku.php?id=group_members

  100. PT Says:

    Kamil Godula (Bertozzi Postdoc)- UCSD
    Ben Swarts (Bertozzi Postdoc) – Central Michigan University
    Maciej Walczak (Danishefsky Postdoc) – University of Colorado, Boulder

  101. Nicole Sampson Says:

    http://www.chem.stonybrook.edu/news_events/

  102. Gmer Says:

    Emily Penzter will be at Case
    http://case.edu/artsci/chem/faculty/pentzer/index.html

  103. Paul Says:

    Just did another round of updates. Thanks for the hiring info and Web confirmations!

    Also, can’t believe this thread has 100 comments (even if you don’t count the Wolfiespam).

  104. Nick Says:

    Nicholas McGrath will begin at University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

  105. Matt Says:

    Tim Wencewicz – Washington University St. Louis (not on on web yet)

  106. anonymous Says:

    Why? Could you elaborate?

  107. anonymous Says:

    http://www.chem.usu.edu/htm/faculty-staff/faculty/memberID=10767

    Yujie Sun to USU

  108. Nick Says:

    Maren Buck is at Smith starting this fall
    Please see following link
    (http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Chem/courses.html)
    and January 23 posting on the department’s facebook page
    (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Smith-College-Department-of-Chemistry/141460132586789)

  109. wolfie Says:

    Ritter has enough ?

    I already had, please.

  110. Paul Says:

    Did another round of updates; thanks, everyone.

  111. Anonymous Says:

    Robert Huigens to University of Florida (Department of Medicinal Chemistry)

    http://pharmacy.ufl.edu/faculty/robert-w-huigens-iii/

  112. Anonymous Says:

    Scott Snyder indeed moving to Scripps FL

  113. antiaromatic Says:

    As a former Snyder grad student, I can confirm the move to Scripps Florida. He was given an incredibly good offer.

  114. EC2 Says:

    Why is Snyder moving?

  115. Paul Says:

    Just added another round of updates, including several Web confirmations.

  116. correlated Says:

    New hire: Sean Roberts (UT Austin)

  117. correlated Says:

    New hire: Heather Kulik (MIT)

  118. Anonymous Says:

    Abhishek Chatterjee in Boston College Chemistry. Web confirmed.

  119. nicho Says:

    Your link to Michael Clifton (Kansas) is incorrect, it sends you to Thompson (Northwestern).

  120. nicho Says:

    My apologies that is Michael Clift (Kansas)

  121. Paul Says:

    @nicho: The Thomson site reports that Clift got a job at Kansas (in the news feed).

  122. Hap Says:

    Based on his recent OL paper (p. 1798), I am assuming that P.A. Evans moved from Liverpool to Queen’s University in Ontario.

  123. Anonymous Says:

    UT Austin: Sean Roberts and Emily Que … confirmed on website

  124. Anonymous Says:

    Rebecca Taurog to Williams College, per department website

  125. Anonymous Says:

    Bo Li is in UNC Chemistry. Web confirmed.

  126. Anonymous Says:

    G. Ekin Atilla-Gokcumen is in Chemistry dept at the University of Buffalo. Cited in dept homepage.

  127. Anonymous Says:

    Luis Velarde is in Chemistry dept at the University of Buffalo. Cited in dept homepage.

  128. Anonymous Says:

    Heather Kulik (Todd Martinez postdoc) to MIT ChE per Martinez group webpage.

  129. Paul Says:

    Another major update completed. Thanks again to all for the info.

  130. Nondegenerate Says:

    The talk of a tough job market doesn’t seem substantiated with such a lengthy list. It will be interesting to collect and post data like these each year to get a better feel for the market at least on the academic side.

  131. Paul Says:

    The list seems long, but my opinion is that the market is still tough. I know a lot of great people whose searches came up empty.

  132. anonymous Says:

    Virginia Tech Chem – Jatinder Josan (not on web yet)

  133. Anonymous Says:

    Edward O’Brien has been hired at Penn State. Source: http://biotheory.umd.edu/

  134. Anonymous Says:

    Thomas Snaddon will join the faculty at Indiana University

  135. Anonymous Says:

    Michael Hilinski has been hired at UVA: http://chem.virginia.edu/faculty-research/faculty/michael-hilinski/

  136. Anonymous Says:

    Kabirul Islam is at the University of Pittsburg Chemistry. Web: http://www.chem.pitt.edu/people/faculty/kabirul-islam

  137. Anonymous Says:

    Alex Deiters has moved from North Carolina State University to University Pittsburgh Chemistry. Web: http://www.chem.pitt.edu/people/faculty/alexander-deiters

  138. Anonymous Says:

    Michelle Farkas has been hired at UMass Amherst: http://www.chem.umass.edu/faculty/farkas.html

  139. Paul Says:

    Another big update. Still working on confirmation of both positions listed in the comments and some not.

  140. anonymous Says:

    Braunschweig left NYU for Miami under good terms. Left because wife (Amy Scott) got a position.

  141. Paul Says:

    Added another round of updates of Web confirmations.

  142. Ian Says:

    If you want to add a few more, many of the attendees at the CSC NFW are new hires, some of whom are not listed here: http://chem.wayne.edu/feiggroup/CSCNFW/2013-workshop/2013-attendees.html

  143. bad wolf Says:

    I’m pretty sure one of your poaches should be Julia, not “Juila” Chan. Not to be pedantic buy didn’t you once correct Tehshik Yoon’s name in the Lilly Award?

  144. Paul Says:

    @bad wolf: Thanks. All suggestions and corrections are welcome, regardless of how small or pedantic they might seem. Accuracy trumps everything else.

  145. anon Says:

    Alan Saghatelian and Dionicio Siegel will be on this list in the near future – tragic to hear that neither one was awarded tenure…

  146. anon. Says:

    Matt Kiesewetter to University of Rhode Island

  147. annon2 Says:

    jennifer roizen @ duke

  148. annon2 Says:

    Adam Sturlaugson @ University of Sioux Falls

  149. chembarkk Says:

    Duke – Emily Derbyshire (starting spring 2014)
    Colorado State University – James Neilson (http://www.chem.colostate.edu/people/jrn/)

  150. Ken Hanson Says:

    Hey Paul,

    I may be a little late to the party but Wenbin Lin just moved from UNC to University of Chicago.

    Good luck in Saint Louis.

  151. Anonymous Says:

    Vanessa Huxter
    University of Arizona

  152. Anonymous Says:

    http://www.cbc.arizona.edu/facultyprofile?fid_call=Huxt

  153. CanadianChemist Says:

    When did the Wenbin Lin deal go down? Seems like too big of a name to fly under the radar…

  154. Ken Hanson Says:

    The Wenbin move came as a big surprise to everyone, including his students, about two months ago.

  155. Anonymous Says:

    Johannes Hachmann from Alan Aspuru-Guzik’s Group at Harvard will move to U Buffalo.
    http://aspuru.chem.harvard.edu/2013/06/25/professor-johannes-hachmann/

  156. erere Says:

    PA (Andy) Evans, definitely left Liverpool for Queens. We took the rotovaps after he was gone

  157. Sublime Says:

    Anyone have any news on Brian Stoltz? He’s back from his absence but now only listed as professor of chemistry without a chair. Very strange…

  158. Degenerate Says:

    Dan Mindiola is moving from Indiana to the University of Pennsylvania

  159. palladium Says:

    Xavier Roy will be joining the Columbia Chemistry department

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/chemistry/fac-bios/roy/faculty.html

  160. bad wolf Says:

    Not to single someone out, but does anyone know anything about Jennifer Roizen, who is starting at Duke? As far as i can tell, she has worked for Stoltz and Du Bois, and has a total of seven publications, including only one first-author–a review in ACR. A research article with Du Bois is listed as “in preparation.”

    So, is she the real deal, or is this a measure of the value of pedigree over productivity?

  161. Ian Says:

    wolfie, I think you could make arguments against the qualification of virtually anyone on this list if you looked hard enough (myself included). Fact is that Jenny is a talented scientist and effective communicator; as is always the case, publications don’t tell the whole story.

  162. bad wolf Says:

    First off, the name’s not “wolfie”. That’s another commenter.

    Second, i tried to ask an even-handed question. If you think she’s the bee’s knees, feel free to give some data there, if there’s more to the story than “she gave a great poster this one time.”

    Third, maybe i should go through a few more CVs, because if everyone thinks they need “multiple C/N/S first-author” pubs to land a TT job, when a wink-and-a-nod from one (two) of the “in crowd” suffices, i think the general community has been misinformed.

  163. Anonymous Says:

    Pedigree does play important role in finding a job, at least to get the interview call. I know many candidates who are coming from top labs and got multiple interviews including top schools. But most of them couldn’t manage to get into those schools. It is possible that because of great pedigree Dr. Jennifer Roizen got into the interview; but she did really well there. Her proposals might have been excellent! It’s just my personal opinion. I don’t know the truth though.

    However, I do not agree with Ian’s comment “I think you could make arguments against the qualification of virtually anyone on this list if you looked hard enough (myself included).” I know many people in this list and their CVs are just simply great.

  164. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Publications can be a pretty subjective metric of productivity as well, given the different philosophies of different advisors. In the arena of total synthesis, some advisors will try to get several papers out of one project, while other advisors will be unwilling to publish a project that is incomplete, even if there are great results along the way. My own PhD experience was with a complicated natural product, that I wasn’t able to finish. I like to believe I solved a number of important problems along the way, and I can tell a compelling story at a job talk, even if I don’t have the papers to back it up. It is just getting the job talk in the first place that can be a challenge. Anyway, thats my 2 cents, and that is why I root for people who may be great and just didn’t have a stellar publication record.

  165. Hap Says:

    It’s possible that someone’s publication count doesn’t represent a fair assessment of output – the emphasis on publication status and count over content seems to be part (but an increasing part) of the motivation for fraud, salami slicing, overhyped and underpowered publications, and many of the other varieties of publication inflation that make research output hard to use and reproduce. Not knowing how good someone’s research is in detail, it’s hard to say.

    As a secondary note, I don’t call my sister Jenny; I can’t see calling any other Jennifers that unless I am married to or dating them, or one of their parents or close relatives.

  166. Ian Says:

    Apologies for my poorly argued previous comment–I was upset that bad wolf would single out one person as potentially unqualified (whether this was your intent or not, this is the way it came across to me). I think we can all agree that there is no single metric that can be used as a fair assessment of a candidate, so to focus solely on a single aspect like pubs is unfair to the individual.

    I agree with Anonymous in that the pedigree may get your foot in the door (just like a C/N/S article or two might), but you’re on your own once the interview starts. You aren’t going to get the job if your interpersonal skills are lacking, your proposals aren’t up to snuff, or you give a particularly bad talk… regardless of whom you worked for!

    My intent with the “arguments against qualification” statement was that if you look close enough, you’ll probably be able to nitpick *something* that is missing on virtually anyone’s CV. It wasn’t meant as a knock on anyone on this list (many of whom I also know quite well)… it’s just that very few people are the complete, total perfect package.

    And Hap, as for Jennifer vs. Jenny… there were two Jennifers in the Stoltz group that started the same year; to differentiate, one went by Jen, one went by Jenny.

  167. Hap Says:

    Sorry. I just knew one relationship in college that ended in part because the male called the female “Jenny” (with diminutive intent, I assume).

  168. anonymous faculty member Says:

    You aren’t being hired for your publication record, no matter what your advisor tells you. It’s a box that is checked – that’s it. A research-intensive department makes hiring decisions based on a candidate’s potential to establish a leading research program and confidence that he/she will be an adequate teacher and colleague.

    In the case mentioned above, Duke did their due diligence and bet about a million dollars that Roizen will be successful. I’m sure that there were questions about her publication history, just as every other candidate is scrutinized both on paper and during the interview for signs of weakness. In some sense, Duke is investing in an undervalued asset – a great candidate with a weaker-than-usual publication history – who otherwise would have gone to a more highly ranked department. They could have just as easily invested in a highly productive scientist with a less-distinguished pedigree, or they might have identified a non-obvious candidate with truly transcendent proposals (rare in my experience). Call it academic Moneyball.

    I realize that this comment will be frustrating to those of you who believe that publication records are the be-all-end-all or who look down at “pedigree” as an elitist concept (it is, but it’s still important). Academic jobs go to people who can convince others that they will be successful – paper metrics are only part of it.

  169. Tums Says:

    Matthew Kieber-Emmons – New Faculty Chemistry – University of Utah – start Aug 1st, 2013

  170. Hap Says:

    webpage at Queen’s University for P. A. Evans:

    http://www.chem.queensu.ca/people/faculty/evans/publications.htm

  171. a Says:

    Hicham Fenniri from Alberta to Qatar Bio/ Northeastern Joint Appointment

  172. J . Says:

    Dan Mindiola moves…
    http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/daniel-j-mindiola-appointed-presidential-term-professor-penn

  173. Anonymous Says:

    Evan Miller to Berkeley: http://chem.berkeley.edu/faculty/miller_evan/index.php

  174. Anonymous Says:

    Saghatelian to Chicago

  175. Paul Bracher Says:

    Wow. That’s an interesting one.
    http://chemistry.uchicago.edu/news/news/index/id/176.html

  176. Peter Grundleson Says:

    Anne Szklarski to King’s College

  177. Chao Says:

    New Hires (for 2013):
    Ke Xu (UC Berkeley) (I did not find the news link…)

  178. Chao Says:

    New Hires (for 2013):
    Scott Warren (UNC) (still, no news link…but both new PIs got their personal pages now)

  179. Anonymous Says:

    Hashim Al-Hashimi is moving from Michigan to Duke (biochem in the med school):

    http://www.biochem.duke.edu/modules/biochem_welcome/index.php?id=1

  180. Curious Says:

    Does anyone know if John Wood actually moved to Baylor? He is still listed on the CSU website (without the A.I. Meyers Chair) and is not listed on the Baylor website.

  181. Bioinorganic Says:

    Jennifer DuBois (from Notre Dame to Montana State University)
    http://jdubois2013.wordpress.com/
    http://www.chemistry.montana.edu/people/person.php?id=541&s=150

  182. NCBoy Says:

    Paul Russo is moving from LSU Chemistry to the Materials Science and Engineering Department at Georgia Tech. he starts January 1, 2014.

  183. Kurt Says:

    John Wood moved to Baylor in late August.

  184. Josh T Says:

    3 unrelated comments (except for a Chicago thread):

    After lengthy back and forth, Mike “the Waz” Wasielewski will be staying at Northwestern, and not moving to Yale. Only we native Chicagoans can understand this, as he turned down a mega-offer.

    Milan Mrksich is another Chicago native who probably could have moved anywhere instead of just across town.

    I look forward to Alan Saghatelian being in this area; they still have a ways to go at UChicago wrt organic chemistry.

    I have no comment about Jennifer Roizen, except that she went to my high school in Chicago (decades later), so good for her.

  185. bad wolf Says:

    Concerned readers may be pleased to note that Jennifer Roizen has indeed finally published a first author paper (“Selective Intermolecular Amination of C-H Bonds at Tertiary Carbon Centers”, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 2013, DOI:10.1002/anie.201304238.). It is great to finally get a chance to read some of her writing, as even her PhD thesis was the only one of five theses from the Stoltz group that year to not be published online..

    While I still have my doubts about how someone would obtain an academic position with such a modest publication record, a little internet searching turns up the amusing tidbit that not only does she have the approval of two major PIs in organic chemistry, but also a famous family.

    Let me simply note in passing that of the other recent hires at Duke, publication records are (first author/total): Qui Wang (4/10), Emily Derbyshire (12/23), Amanda Hargrove (5/9) and Steven Malcomson (2/11).

    I guess we shall see in a few years if Duke’s “big bet” pays off. Good luck to all.

  186. bad wolf Says:

    Sorry about not the html problems there.
    Links:
    http://stoltz.caltech.edu/theses.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Roizen
    http://www.doctoroz.com/bios/mike-roizen

  187. Anonymous Says:

    @ bad wolf.

    the one thing I hate about these threads is the lack of real names (mine, for instance).

    Maybe inserting your real name would allow us to evaluate your progress in comparison to the others.

    Your assertive negativity suggests you were passed over this year for an Assistant Professor position. Yet, we are unable to see just how competitive you SHOULD have been, in comparison to those you are so AGAINST?

  188. bad wolf Says:

    I am realistic enough to have never applied to such a prestigious position, given my publication record. I am beginning to see people of my acquaintance be passed over for tenure or leave science completely, with perfectly respectable publication records (at time of hire).

    The records of the various hires listed above could provide guideline to those looking at such positions as to what they may aspire to. Unfortunately the end results will not be known for about five years.

    I am sorry you think looking for correlative data is “assertive negativity.” Perhaps science is not your field?

  189. Bad Wolf is a douche bag Says:

    Bad Wolf,

    What is your problem? I worked with Jenny at Stanford, and she’s an excellent scientist. It appears that you believe that Duke doesn’t have a vetting process for new faculty members, but (surprise, surprise) that they actually do. The Chemistry Department doesn’t give new faculty startup funds for shits and giggles. There are numerous people that didn’t have the best first author publication record when they obtained an academic position (e.g. Denmark, Woerpel, Sarpong). The reason why this occurs is because smart people talk to other smart people and then recommend other smart people (and I’m sorry if you are not involved). Stop being a douche bag.

    Sincerely,

    Bad Wolf is a douche bag

  190. Mars-teen Says:

    It is sad Bad Wolf has picked on Prof. Roizen but maybe I see his point that “politics” or “pedigree” play a bigger role than it should during the academic job search.
    If that is the case… well it is life and nothing we can do about it. On the other hand maybe Dr. Roizen had 3 papers under review that we are not aware of and/or (quite possibly) her research proposals are top notch full of creative ideas and the recommendation letters were exceptional. In either case, best of lucks to her on her research endeavors. Either way, name calling or picking up on someone is something that I believe we should avoid. Just my 2 cents

  191. anyone Says:

    OK. new on the job market. The deadlines are approaching. What is the time frame AFTER the job application deadline do people get invited for interviews or calls, etc? As in, how long until I KNOW the committee is NOT interested in me? Any advice from anyone would be useful!

  192. Paul Bracher Says:

    @anyone: My experience was one to five weeks. Hearing back after one week was a surprise. Some of the schools that get back to people later (rather than sooner) might make calls to see if the candidates they’re considering are still interested. I got one call asking if I was still interested, then never heard back from them again. That was a little annoying.

    Best of luck. The waiting and not knowing is the worst part.

  193. Ian Says:

    Most of the schools (big research institutions primarily) where I had an interview contacted me in November, and it was about even for “beginning of November” and “after Thanksgiving,” with interview dates ranging from late Nov/early Dec until late January. So, as with Paul, this put the timeline in the 1 or 2 to 5 week window. I know of a few people that got initial contact in January, but that seemed to be rarer. As far as finding out when a school isn’t interested? I was still getting rejection letters in June.

  194. Umbisam Says:

    One doesn’t have to be first author to make a big contribution to a paper. The field one works in is also important. If a department is hell bent on filling a position with someone who did x-ray studies on astro dust, then they could fill it with someone who has few publications. Of course, politics can also help.

  195. Paul Bracher Says:

    Updated the post to include the remaining Web confirmations (all but one). If you know of other first-year professors, let me know.

    Good luck to everyone going out for academic jobs this cycle!

  196. Umbisam Says:

    In looking over your list and clicking on some of the links, I just found out that Bob Silbey passed away. Too bad. He was a real scholar.

  197. Ian Says:

    Paul, Utah had a couple of new hires this year–Caroline Saouma and Matthew Kieber-Emmons.

  198. Newly Minted Prof Says:

    I am in the first few months of a new R1 academic job. My school happens to have an egalitarian spirit when it comes to hiring, so I am on a search committee less than a year after I was on the other side. I have a few comments from my brief experience. Of course, all my observations are based on my school; I certainly can’t speak for other schools.
    1) To people who think that pedigree or politics plays the biggest role; there is zero chance that would play a role where I am. Big, famous, profs certainly call in to support their candidates, but in the end, professors are an independent bunch, and they all have different ideas on what is important, and people don’t make million+ investments as a ‘favor’ or on another professor’s (however famous) opinion.
    2) On that note, all the senior faculty I’ve talked to have different criteria they think is important. Some consider letters of recommendation as the most important, some look at the proposals first to make sure they are up to snuff. Everyone has their favorite marker of ‘success’, so there isn’t 1 secret to getting a job. But I can tell you, despite my limited time, they have emphasized looking over applications very carefully, regardless of ‘pedigree’. I have typically spend on at least 30 minutes looking at each applications, reading all the letters, proposals, etc. for every candidate, regardless of whether they graduated from a top 5 or a second tier school. And multiple faculty look at each application, so you can see what a huge time investment a search takes. This is not trivial, as I am in my first year (and busy!!). The committee certainly take everything seriously, and take a good look at the whole package.
    3) Speaking of which, there are many qualities that are important besides being a workaholic and publishing in double digits in C/N/S. I’m sure it depends on the department, but mine considers communications skills, (student) recruiting ability, the research’s ability to receive funding (hopefully from multiple funding agencies), and frankly how well they get along with other faculty in the department. (As far as funding goes, the proposals give a good look at a candidates grantsmanship, which is critical to receiving funding). I think some schools (particularly the wealthy elite) can get away with exceptionally brilliant scientists that have no interpersonal skills, but have trouble writing grants, and antagonize everyone around them, but most other places would *not* make that hire.
    4) We have also had to triage extremely talented people who have fantastic letters, proposals, CV’s, etc. who want to do research in an area that is overloaded in the department or not really appropriate for the division. This of course is not the fault of the applicant, but of the desire to keep the departmental research balanced.
    5) Just to go back to publication record. The senior faculty on the committee told me not to focus on the number of publications, but whether the candidate has done the ‘hard experiments’. It certainly takes hard work to be on a project that is ‘working’ and publish lots of papers, but not all ideas work, and someone that works on a hard problem, and manages to deal with the frustration of setbacks but has the ability to problem solve and think critically (which unfortunately results in less publications), would certainly get a look despite a low publication record.
    6) As (I think) Ian pointed out, the application package might get you the interview, but it doesn’t give you the job. In the end, hard, thoughtful questions are asked during the proposal defense, and the candidate better be able to back up their ideas, or know what can go wrong (and how they would solve potential problems), or the interview ends at the defense. I have been told stories about how details were not thought through and were quickly revealed in the proposal defense.

    That being said, if you are still reading, I will get to the point which prompted me to reply anyway. I do try to keep up with Chembark, because I like the content, but I don’t read *everything*. However, I have TWICE seen hires questioned (in the comments, not by Paul) because of small publication records, and BOTH times, the hires were women. As other posters have pointed out, there are plenty of very successful scientists (mostly male as far as I can tell) that were hired with small publication records, but their proposals, CV, etc. set them apart, and the departments made a thoughtful decision that the person was well-qualified anyway. So I am offended that there is a thought that these WOMEN are hired because of some kind of political or pedigree reason but I have yet to see a MAN face the same critique (like I said, I don’t everything, but I do scan the comments, and haven’t seen it)

    On the same note, one of these women, who might be at Princeton, appears to have been very successful (disclaimer: I don’t know her, and she is not in my field). However, I have heard from my colleagues in her field that she does fantastic science. I have read comments that attribute her success to her resources at a top school. I suppose I question that assertion; there have been many negative tenure decisions at top 5 schools in the last 2 decades… resources are important, but success can not be measured by resources at ANY school. It’s a component, but there is certainly more to success. I resent that accusation, you can make it at any wealthy elite school, but I don’t see men facing the same scrutiny.

    PS Paul. Sorry for the long winded reply. I wanted to let you know I appreciate the fair and open forum you give to the community. I think it’s important, and even though I’m ridiculously busy (I appreciated your post about how sleepless the first year can be), I always try to keep up with chembark, because I think all the posts and topics are insightful and useful.

  199. Hap Says:

    I think Thorson moved to Kentucky from Wisconsin.

  200. Paul Bracher Says:

    @NMP: There’s no need to apologize; I think most people here appreciate long, thoughtful comments. Thanks for peeling the curtain back on the review of candidates. Also, thanks for bringing up the point about faculty hiring, female candidates, and their treatment by the community here. I can’t recall whether a male candidate ever faced similar comments on ChemBark, unless you’re going to count me. While I hesitate to draw conclusions from two cases, they do align with the troubling history of hiring in our field. I think these issues deserve a lot more discussion here.

  201. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Art Catino was hired at Scranton this past year.

  202. Franz Says:

    Thanks for the great comment, NMP. You nicely captured my own unease about the misogynist undertones of some of these comments. I also think it’s not very ethical to anonymously criticize someone who has just started their independent career, male or female. Give them five or ten years and then maybe you can talk intelligently about their body of work.

    One other point that NMP can comment on: I served on a search committee my first year as an Assistant Professor, and to me one of the overwhelming sensations was, “How the hell did I ever get hired, or even get interviews?” There were so many great files, it was quite a humbling experience. Interestingly, over the intervening years, as I have moved up through the ranks, I still experience the same sort of response. There are many, many talented and deserving candidates out there, and the manner in which they are chosen depends on a variety of criteria, including random chance (e.g., in what areas a given department needs to hire). Trying to distil it down to a simple publication metric is the worst sort of bean-counting.

  203. Hap Says:

    1) I don’t know that it’s not fair to criticize young faculty without naming yourself – it’s hard, however, for others to judge whether the standards the commenter is applying are consistent and consistently applied, and it may be hard to judge whether they are good, yet, because it takes time. Mostly, Prof. Doyle’s work doesn’t take my breath away, though that’s a pretty high standard (Baran meets it, and not too many others) – hence, it’s hard for me to accurately compare career statuses. I’ve been wrong before on who I would have picked for prof slots when I was in grad school, anyway, so I don’t do this for a living.

    I think the means argument for Prof. Doyle’s achievements is bogus – no one said Baran did well because he was at Scripps, or Carreira when he was at Caltech, and I don’t imagine they say it of Shenvi, either.

    2) On the Chemjobber/Leigh Boerner podcast, LB commented that she had to be better than any man in her group to get respect and that her credibility to others (as shown with actions) was lower than that the group blowhard, despite her achievements in lab (and his lack of same). Unfortunately, it would then not be surprising that those disparities would be amplified with money on the line.

  204. Tiger Chemistry Says:

    @NMP another interesting point: not only was prof. Doyle the first internal promotion with tenure since 1996 but also she got promoted one year EARLY(!).

  205. Bad Wolf is a douche bag Says:

    It is obviously unfair to single out just women scientists and use the “means” argument to downplay their success. However, lets not pretend that “means” isn’t the most important factor for success in the field of organic chemistry. For example, at top 10 programs, you are getting a different caliber of self-motivated, dedicated and intelligent student and postdoc. “Means” can indeed make good scientists look great. To be clear, I’m not saying that this is the case in the particular examples discussed in this blog (and obviously departmental tenure standards naturally normalize this factor). However, the greater scientific community should evaluate each situation as objectively as possible to determine whether the work is truly innovative or the natural outcome of the ideal environment.

  206. bad wolf Says:

    From recent discussions here i’ve learned we’re not supposed to criticize just-hired faculty, young investigators, established investigators, Nobel-prize winning big names in the field, and journal editors. Luckily i’m none of those things.

    Making a “means” argument wasn’t my intention (and certainly not singling out “just women scientists”; this seems to be wholly inferred by subsequent posters), but as you point out, was an argument for the difference between starting at MidWest State U and Big Ivy: better facilities/students/grant opportunities. It is a big factor on where you start your career and whether you’re gaining or losing if you transfer schools. Is John Wood going to get better/worse students at Baylor than CSU? Was CSU better/worse than Yale? Was Shenvi going to get as good a student at a second-tier school, before he’s established his own name brand? So yes, once you’re hired by Big Name Top 10 school, you are well on the path to success. Congratulations.

    Hap, i was more than happy to let the thread die, but since i’m here, i wanted to ask what you meant by “had to be better than any man in her group to get respect….despite her achievements in lab (and his lack of same)”. How does that correlate with getting hired without publications/postdoc experience? Wouldn’t achievements include lots of publications?

    You know who i feel bad for? Abby Doyle has a postdoc. Why? If she thinks a postdoc is a useless position to have, that you should be ready to go straight out of grad school, what’s the point? Did she feel some sense of pity towards the applicants, or confusion as to what the job entails? I can only wonder what it would be like to work for someone who thought your position was a waste of her time.

    All that aside, I guess name-calling is still the latest thing at the Stanford Super-Smarty Society, including repeating their little bon mot for a fourth time, perhaps in case us lesser intelligences didn’t get it the first time.

  207. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    What an asinine comment. Abby Doyle is not the first academic to not postdoc.

  208. Hap Says:

    BW – Did you listen to the podcast? I think LB’s anecdote was quite clear.

    I suspect that in any lab, there are people you go to for help with something, people whose thoughts you value, and people who are good in lab, and people who….aren’t, or don’t. Some of those in the latter set may even have a publication record distinct from their lack of membership in any of the former groups. If you work with them, however, it’s pretty clear what they are, and whether they’ll be useful. If the people in a lab think someone is full of hot air, in a ranking less likely to be perturbed by major factors (in my experience, group members don’t care as much about where you came from then what you can do and how well you play with other, although YMMV), they’re probably right. And being lower on the totem pole than that guy is a pretty clear statement of the sexual environment, most likely.

    As an example, Professor Virgil didn’t postdoc after getting his degree from Harvard when he went to be a professor at MIT. I’m sure he wasn’t the only one. If you don’t have a good fix on who has become a PI without postdocking, well, it’s hard to assess 1) whether it’s a good idea to postdoc (although it doesn’t matter, because you’re probably not getting a PI position without one) and 2) how good Prof. Doyle is relative to others in her class. From my n=2 experience, she has probably done pretty well, but that’s, well, n = 2.

    I’m sorry I had to be the match for your napalm. The lab shower’s over there.

  209. EC Says:

    I think the discussion about the advantage of starting in a big school is very interesting.

    SURE you have a better pool of students/postdocs when you are a Junior Professor at a big school.

    SURE you have more resources (typically!) when you are a Junior Professor at a big school.

    SURE your publications (especially those first ones, which kinda decide if you’re gonna be a JACS/Angewandte or an OrgLett/ChemEurJ kind of group – but not irreversibly although most people may feel so) command a bigger punch, even if intuitively, because they come from a big school

    BUT

    People seem to forget that:

    1. You actually have to get INTO that big school as an academic. And that, my friends, is no easy business
    2. You have to deal with powerful egos and very egocentric and difficult colleagues
    3. The sheer PRESSURE at those places to succeed is IMMENSE. And “Success” at Harvard means something completely different from “Success” at Colorado State. It takes big balls to prevail in such an environment (that, or being an asshole).

  210. Seriously? Says:

    Bad Wolf – I wonder if you spend as much time reading publications as you do counting them. I am surprised that such a clever investigator as yourself would not have drawn the parallel between the unavailability of Prof. Roizen’s PhD thesis (which is about 4″ thick in printed form, BTW. There is a copy attempting to damage my shelf even now… bet you’re jealous.) and the obvious conclusion that nearly all of that beautiful work is unpublished because the natural product is not done. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if she hadn’t HAD to leave Caltech to start her postdoc because… oh, right, the NIH made her start her Fellowship by a certain date. But maybe you missed that line on her CV? Also, Duke was one of many schools (I won’t reveal the number because she would not like it if she found out I did) willing to take this “gamble” on a really brilliant, daring chemist with unflappable enthusiasm, a genuine, honest personality, and an obvious determination to pursue great science, whether it made it into a peer reviewed publication in time for her application or not. This entire line of speculation is both ignorant and useless. Perhaps there is a flash column you should be running?

  211. Sri Kosuri Says:

    Just came upon this thread. I’m starting in January at UCLA Chem/Biochem and I interviewed in last year’s cycle.

  212. Matt Says:

    @Seriously, we are watching how much brilliant is Prof. Rozien is. Not as much as you think because she could not finish the task i.e. natural product she was assigned.

  213. Matt Says:

    And one more thing, Abigail Doyle did not have to do postdoc because her mother Dr. Amy Gutmann is the provost of Princeton. So who says pedigree and politics have no role in hiring?

  214. Matt is a douche bag Says:

    Matt, you sound super duper smart. Could you please give us the references to your amazing synthetic achievements? I’m sure the targets are not only of astounding complexity but also synthesized with remarkable creativity and beauty. You seem like the kind of scientist that would accept nothing less. However, don’t forget “we are watching how much brilliant is (Matt) is”. We wait with bated breath…

  215. Graet Chem Says:

    @ Matt – Amy Gutmann hasn’t been provost of Princeton since 2004 and Abigail Doyle is hardly the only academic on the circuit with a family history in the ‘university business’.

    @Matt is a douche bag – that’s how you do it without behaving like a two year old.

    Tbh, as a ‘foreign’ chemist I find this entire thread more than a little unprofessional. Even Paul’s original blog post is a bit off or maybe the word ‘poach’ doesn’t have the same connotations of unscrupulous practices in the US as it does over here in the UK.

  216. Hap Says:

    I think the use of “poaching” is pretty general, with the negative implications intended, more or less. Poaching has significant aspects of secrecy, which fits with everything else in academia (where “openness” is a demand, except for anything that applies to universities and money or jobs) – the illegality implication isn’t really fair, though.

    I’m not sure why this thread is unprofessional in general, even if some of the comments may be. For industrial jobs, changes are posted in C+E News periodically, or announced, but with academia, it’s all a black box (just like journal fraud/errors). It’s not as important to some of us, for whom it’s gossip, but in academia it’d be nice to know who you’re working with and how they got there. More importantly, it would help for the trust of the institutions in both cases (fraud and hiring practices) to know exactly what’s going on. For example, the lack of clarity of how and why someone is hired is used against women academics to impugn their abilities; little such information exists for male candidates, however. (Also, when something unusual happens, people are going to know, and probably will assume the worst.) In the absence of credible, official information, rumors run rampant, and since people have legitimate reasons to know what’s going on (and places to find out or to arouse interest), the appropriate institutions ought to be telling people what is happening.

  217. Graet Chem Says:

    @Hap – I think you greatly over-estimate the level of openness and transparency in industrial appointments. People are regularly ‘parachuted’ into management positions in my company with seemingly little relevant experience and no explanation and certainly no real idea there was a vacancy in the first place (my contacts in other companies tell me this is not a specific issue with my firm). Within six to twelve months these people are moved on to the next stage on the greasy pole leaving whatever mess they have made for others to clear up. Most industrial vacancies are never advertised and you only go to the open market when you have run out of ideas either internally or with known external contacts. The grass is certainly not greener over here.

    I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree on the lack of professionalism point as some of the comments on here have been pretty rough. Also, I think the ‘residual’ sexism in academia has more to it that lack of open recruitment practices, certainly there is a level of misogyny in academia that I haven’t found in my post-academic career.

  218. Hap Says:

    I know that there is lots of buddy-buddy/friend of the boss hiring and other things that make industrial hiring not exactly open, but I still think the level of openness for industrial positions is greater – they announce some of them in C+E News for example. Of course, if hiring were transparent, Chemjobber would probably be talking about someone else. I figured, though, that there is more information about industrial hiring (perhaps simply becaude more people are there to have experience?) than academic hiring.

    I think some of the comments are OTT but I don’t think the topic of discussion is – if something is substantive and secretive (in the presence of stated claims of openness), it’s probably going to be discussed somewhere and treated like the gossip the powers-that-be have deemed it as. If we want people to discuss these matters (hiring and fraud, for example) reasonably, then the corresponding institutions need to treat the matters like adults as well.

    I have no idea what the relative level of misogyny between academia and industry, but there’s plenty of misogyny to be had. Academic positions (since they are rare and valuable) are a bone to be contested, and when there’s money and self at stake, people are willing to say and do things they probably shouldn’t.

  219. SupraChem Says:

    2014 hires
    Ryan Rafferty (Kansas State U)

  220. David Says:

    Sergey Pronin (post doc, shenvi lab, scripps) will join UCI: http://www.chem.uci.edu

  221. UCTDM Says:

    Chen Zhou joins University of Central Missouri.

    http://www.ucmo.edu/chemphys/about/facstaff/zhou.cfm?print=yes&

  222. bad wolf Says:

    By the way, we can confirm Scott Snyder moving to Scripps Florida by multiple sources now.

  223. David Says:

    Jeffrey Rinehart will join UCSD Chemistry in fall of 2014 – https://www-chem.ucsd.edu/faculty/welcome-new-fac.html

  224. David Says:

    Greg Scholes (University of Toronto) will be moving his lab to Princeton in July of 2014 – http://www.princeton.edu/chemistry/news/archive/?id=12177

  225. Anon Says:

    Tianning Diao to NYU Chemistry
    http://chemistry.fas.nyu.edu/object/chem.news.WelcomeTianningDiao2014

  226. Canadian Chemist Says:

    Steven Townsend (Vanderbilt): https://my.vanderbilt.edu/steventownsend/
    Alex Grenning (Florida)

  227. Chemjobber Says:

    Cornell hiring Brett Fors, according to Dave Collum: https://twitter.com/DavidBCollum/status/440708698621476865

  228. Anon Chemist Says:

    MIT new hire: Jeff van Humbeck

    http://chemistry.mit.edu/jeffrey-van-humbeck-join-department

  229. MIT new hire Says:

    Can anyone tell me what is Jeff van Humbeck’s outstanding academic achievement? Maybe I am missing something here.
    I am absolutely shocked that someone with that publication record can be hired as an assistant professor at MIT Chemistry.

  230. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    I’m inclined to give van Humbeck the benefit of the doubt. He worked for a PhD advisor who is notorious for not publishing results that are less than “perfect”/ taking a long time to publish. He got a first author publication out a post-doc in a pretty different field. He has pedigree, which means that two pretty big name advisors thought enough of him to write a letters that were capable of getting him an interview at MIT. The whole issue I have with holding publication number up as the be all and end all is that it discourages people who have worked on challenging projects with advisors who don’t believe in the least publishable unit. There are many organic faculty like Jacobsen, Evans, Macmillan, with whom you are doing well if you publish one or 2 papers in the course of a PhD. Faculty like this rarely publish ambitious projects that were not completed, even if the student made a stellar effort. Their rec letters would usually carry this, and would still carry a lot of weight. Attitudes where publication quantity is everything might punish people who could be capable of pushing the edges of our field because they had the ambition to take on a big project in the first place. Anyway, we didn’t see van Humbeck’s proposals. Time will tell us if the above attitude is correct or not.

  231. David B. Collum Says:

    I was very impressed by Jeff van Humbeck.

  232. Just this guy, you know? Says:

    Apparently some people treat the academic hiring results like the freakin’ Oscars.

    “He won for Best Actor… can you *believe* what he’s wearing?!”

  233. Best Thread Ever Says:

    This is such a great thread. I cant wait to see how people react to some of the hirings I know about. LOL.

  234. Robert Spitale Says:

    Maybe people should use their real names on this?

    -Rob Spitale

  235. William D. Says:

    After examining his record, I also wonder if he was in fact the best applicant available at the time.
    The projects and results detailed in his only two JACS papers are neither novel nor an improvement over the status quo.
    I am not sure if they can be called “pushing the edges of our field”.

  236. Dai Bao Says:

    If he was a Chinese with the same record and from the same labs, he would not be able to get even an interview from a second-tier school.

  237. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    The armchair hiring committees seem to be out in force today. I for one struck out in the job search this year. I don’t have any resentment towards people who were successful, when they obviously have talent (as anyone who is hired in this climate has to have today). Anyway, I don’t imagine that the hiring committee at MIT are a bunch of chumps. Maybe the real story is that there are many more eminently qualified applicants than there are positions, and what it takes to get even an interview is more intangible than what appears in a pub-med search.

  238. Just this guy, you know? Says:

    @SpeedyGonzales: Agreed. “It’s okay, Faculty Search Committees, you can stand down. *These* guys know what’s what without even meeting the candidates.”

  239. Will Dichtel@Cornell Says:

    I was also impressed by Jeff van Humbeck.

    Publication records are contextual and his overall application was strong enough to earn him interviews at a number of departments, including my own.

    Also, to avoid confusion, I am certainly not the commenter “William D” above.

  240. Robert Spitale Says:

    Great to see more people signing in on this thread, while using their real names. I am going through the hiring process right now and I can tell you there is a lot that goes into these searches and committee members to not give free passes. Once you are there interviewing, your interview gets you the job. NOT your publication record. Sure, it helps get you in the door. But, each project is different and papers are hard to come by. A lot of boxes need to be checked to get hired.

  241. Anon Says:

    UC Riverside made 2 more new hires this year
    Dr. De-en Jiang in Materials Chemistry
    Dr. Dave Martin in Organic Chemistry

  242. Wolfie Says:

    I never even got an offer from the University of Maine

    although ? What do you learn there ? rust

    or mildew

  243. DMP Says:

    Time will tell if he deserves to be MIT. It is tough to get an interview at the top schools unless you are in that circle. People in that small circle are not willing to let the outsiders into their circle, particularly if you are NOT white or carry a foreign or non-European first name. For example, Quangbin Dong at UT-Austin should deserve to get a position at UC-Berkeley or Princeton or Illinois. However, these places gave a job to someone else. Quangbin did not get the job at Illinois because he is Chinese and not American enough. The job went to someone else a year later. This happened in 2011 and 2012. Everyone now can see how Quangbin does in comparison to other folks who got hired at Illinois, Berkeley, Stanford, and Princeton in 2011 and 2012. I strongly believe if Quangbin’s first name is John, Jeff, Eric, and etc, he would be at these places now. Honestly, at the end of the day, if one has great ideas, he/she will do well at any places. I feel that the synthetic organic community focuses too much on the name, reputation, and pedigree. It is not the candidates who got hire are the people we should criticize and make them feel that they don’t deserve to be there. It is the system dominated by a small group of people who have so much ego and are not willing to let the outsiders to get into their elite circles. If we look around in the top ten schools, how many non-white or Asian foreigners are organic faculty members there. Other divisions are willing to let the best people, regardless of their background and nationality, into their circle.

  244. DRB Says:

    DMP – do not cry for Guangbin (not Quangbin). He got an astronomical startup at UT, more than twice the size golden boys get at top 10 schools, and he is in a state where research funding for chemistry is better than anywhere else in the US. Furthermore, the rate-limiting step for hiring foreigners is not that they are Asian or whatever, it is language. Three hundred undergrads in intro organic chemistry will not take too kindly if someone who lectures them speaks in a heavily accented English. It is not only research, it is also ability to teach and present that is taken into account. If you have 100 applicants per job, out of which 30 are qualified, and 10 fit the position and are about as equally good in research – would you choose one who lectures in heavily accented English, or a native speaker, or at least one who can speak reasonably well?

    BTW I am a damn foreigner myself.

  245. CW Says:

    “If we look around in the top ten schools, how many non-white or Asian foreigners are organic faculty members there.” – DMP
    I don’t think the good old boys’ club mentality is limited to organic divisions, or to chemistry for that matter. Just scan through the list of last year’s hires and look at their names.

    “Furthermore, the rate-limiting step for hiring foreigners is… ” – DRB
    Nothing to do with being foreign… there are plenty of folks with ethnic names who are U.S. citizens and don’t speak with “heavily accented English” (stereotyping much?).

  246. DRB Says:

    CW – first, I have been on about 8 faculty hiring committees. While I am not in a top 20 school, at least in our school no one cares about name or for that matter where person was born, or, to the dismay of some Americans, if the person is a US citizen or not. In 2 cases out of 8 we gave offers to Asian people who were US-born or immigrated as children/teenagers. One of them accepted, other went to top 10 school. This is 25% of offers – and 12.5% of hires – are there 25% or even 12.5% of Asian-Americans in this country? I do not think so – you are the one who is stereotyping. Furthermore, we can take a look at Harvard Chemistry faculty. Do names such as Kishi, Liu, Ni, Park, Xie, Zhuang sound American/European to you? What you would consider an acceptable % of non-American names on faculty? Fifty, eighty, or hundred percent? Nine percent as in Harvard is apparently too little.

    I wonder where your knowledge about exclusion of people with non-American/European names come from. I have not observed any of that. Hiring is a complex process, and above commentators have described it well. You advertize, then select people who are in the sub-field you want to hire in, then look at groups they are in (yes, that is the only somewhat unfair component – large, famous groups will have an advantage due to potential networking possibilities), then count papers and look at their quality, read recomm letters, call up advisors/friends who know the person, then invite 2-5 for interviews and judge their ability to think, present, lecture to undergrads, and get along with colleagues.

  247. Chem Guevara Says:

    In my department, we have 4 out of 23 faculty that were born in Asia == 11 out of 23 faculty are born outside the US/Canada.
    I can’t imagine that a single member of our hiring committees would be motivated by this sort of outdated prejudice. We are too highly focused on identifying the most promising and productive candidates, regardless of background.
    If there is any prejudice, it is that we keep inviting candidates from the same pathetically small set of schools (Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, Stanford, Caltech, MIT, Yale). That is the prejudice that I would like combat.

  248. CW Says:

    “we can take a look at Harvard Chemistry faculty”
    DRB – let’s take a look at Yale and WUStL Chemistry faculty too. (I can cherry-pick my examples as well as you do.)

    “Kishi, Liu, Ni, Park, Xie, Zhuang”
    Sure, hired over the span of 40 years that is… and mostly prior to the economic crisis.

    “Fifty, eighty, or hundred percent?”
    No. That would be a disturbingly high % of professors with “heavily accented English”.

    “first, I have been on about 8 faculty hiring committees.”
    Was this meant to impress or prove a point?

  249. DRB Says:

    CW, I just randomly picked Harvard as the first example that people would usually think of as being the best chem department. We can look at Yale (1 Asian), or we can look at Stanford (6 out of 24), or Berkeley (8 out of 60), the point is that Harvard is not an exception and Asians are definitely not underrepresented in Chemistry faculty. If you want overall statistics, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fig_2._NDS_example_summary_table.pdf – Asians are about 10% of chemistry faculty in US, which is much more than their representation in US population (4.4%). Your point about not hiring US Asians is therefore wrong from statistical viewpoint. Furthermore, my point about 8 hiring committees was that I have participated in process of hiring, and consequently know what goes on in academic hiring. The question is, do you know what goes on? And the answer is probably that you have no clue whatsoever, based on your assumptions.

    And what is the point about 8 hires over 40 years? According to your ideas of fairness, give a number what % of Asian faculty should be at Harvard instead of current 9%.

  250. CW Says:

    “Your point about not hiring US Asians is therefore wrong from statistical viewpoint.” – DRB

    No, I’ve never made such a point. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I’ve only made two relatively short posts prior to this, and if you’d care to scroll up and see for yourself, I’ve not made a single comment about Asians, U.S. born or otherwise. I have thus far been talking about applicants with ethnic names. Frankly, I find your fixation with this Asian issue very disturbing… do you harbor some underlying disdain for this group that we should know about? If not, why do you keep harping on that topic? (esp. in your last post).

    I was only referring to people with ethnic names, including those who are American born.
    http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html (A study by Prof. Marianne Bertrand)

    “According to your ideas of fairness, give a number what % of Asian faculty should be…”
    Sorry, but I do not believe in assigning quotas for *any* group.

    “…and consequently know what goes on in academic hiring.”
    Minor revision suggested: “…and consequently know what goes on in academic hiring in my department.”

    P.S. One would assume that an academic knows better than to cite Wikipedia as a reference.

  251. UWash Says:

    Jim Mayer to Yale

  252. David Says:

    Ziad Ganim will be starting his independent career at YALE. He is presently a postdoc at the Technische Universität München (with Matthias Rief) and formerly a doctoral student at MIT (with Andrei Tokmakoff)

  253. Another Hire Says:

    Andy McNally to Colorado State Univ

  254. anonymous Says:

    Didn’t MIT only get 13 applicants for the position because so many people were scared to apply there? I was told by an MIT prof that they dropped the search after getting so few applicants. I guess he wasn’t privy to more information or they invited somebody for an interview after all. Somehow…

  255. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    I doubt it. They interviewed 10 or so people. Why would anyone be afraid to apply for a job there?

  256. anonymous Says:

    I was afraid to apply for a job there. It’s MIT. That’s what I told the prof from there when I met with him and he told me that it’s foolish and because of people like me, they only got 13 applicants and that I should have applied since if you do get it, it’s the easiest job in the world. If you can manage your time, then you’re surrounded by smart students and postdocs who do amazing work and get you lots of publications. Still, I probably wouldn’t do it anyways. I have enough good publications and I think my proposal was good, but I don’t have the pedigree and I thought that not only it was scary to apply, it would also be a waste of my time.

  257. anonymous Says:

    Is there going to be another post for this year where everything is collected? It was fun watching this last year.

  258. dragon fire Says:

    I think Professor Yian Shi (Colorado State) spends most of his time running a lab in China. He publishes many papers from there. He still has Colorado State website? What’s the story here?

  259. Anonymouss Says:

    Aneta Czajkowska (CUNY – Brooklyn College)
    Guillermo Gerona-Navarro (CUNY – Brooklyn College)
    Emilio Gallicchio (CUNY – Brooklyn College)

  260. Incorrect info Says:

    Of course MIT didn’t just get 13 applicants. However, I was one of the people they interviewed there. Your information is probably wrong.

  261. DDXZ Says:

    Can confirm Jim Mayer to Yale, was at their visiting weekend and it was all the buzz.

  262. DDXZ Says:

    More UWashington: Cody Schlenker from U Southern Calif (Thomspon) and NSF Posdoc from UWash (Ginger). Starts July 2014 in physical/materials chemistry for energy.

  263. Dexter Says:

    Kenneth Graham (University of Kentucky)

  264. More MIT hires Says:

    Gabriela Schlau-Cohen (junior, ultrafast spectroscopy) and Mei Hong (senior hire from Iowa State, solid state NMR) both hired at MIT.

  265. Even More Hires - Says:

    From UPenn
    http://www.chem.upenn.edu/news-item/2014/03/penn-chemistry-adds-two-new-faculty-members

    Associate Professor Elizabeth Rhoades (Yale) will be joining the Department in July 2015. Liz’s lab lab studies protein folding, misfolding, and dynamics.

    Also, Neil S. Tomson, currently at Los Alamos National Laboratory, will join the Department at the same time as an Assistant Professor of Inorganic Chemistry.

  266. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    Yes, MIT chemistry professor… easiest job in the world. Kick back and let the students bring you ready-to-ship Science papers, which will be accepted without revision. Play golf with the program managers and have them beg you to take their money…

  267. baddog Says:

    Dr. Hailiang Wang to Yale

  268. craigFWTX Says:

    Texas Christian University lucked out and was able to hire an X-ray crystallography/carborane expert named Yulia Sevryugina this previous academic year. She completed her Ph.D. with Marina Petrukhina at Albany and her postdoc with Frederick Hawthorne at Missouri.

  269. Ole' Miss Says:

    Jonah Jurss, a postdoc from Berkeley, to Ole’ Miss

    http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/cjcgrp/images/people/Jonah.png

  270. Chris Chang Says:

    Thumb up for Jonah Jurss. Yeaaaaaaaaaaa!

  271. Canadian Chemist Says:

    Yale has made a lot of hires/”poaches” in the past two years. Looks like they are growing their department quite a bit!

  272. anon chemist Says:

    In reference to CSU, I hope Prof. McNally can perform under dire conditions. Williams hasn’t published anything good in 5+ years, Wood left last year, Ferreira is probably being poached, and Rovis will probably leave in a year or two when literally no one else is left. Yes, Yian Shi is around about 5% of the year.

  273. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Laina Geary (Organic/ Organometallic) and Matthew Tucker (Phys. Chem) at University of Nevada Reno.

  274. baddog Says:

    Dr. Sarah Slavoff to Yale

  275. Kevin Kubarych Says:

    A former student from my group, Jessica Anna, will be joining the chemistry department at Penn. Go Jessica!

  276. More hires Says:

    David Sarlah (Nicolaou PhD, Carreira Postdoc, Total synthesis) to Illinois at Urbana Champaign

    http://www.sarlahgroup.com/

  277. More hires Says:

    Jefferson Chan (C. Chang postdoc from Berkeley) to Illinois at Urbana Champaign

    http://www.chan-lab.com/

  278. Catalysis Says:

    Micalizio moved because he was denied a major promotion at Scripps and because of personal conflicts with other faculty members. Same reasons he left Yale.

  279. InTheKnow Says:

    Dio Siegel to UCSD – starting in June.

  280. Hootthehoot Says:

    Academia (and especially Organic Chemistry) is the greatest pyramid scheme ever devised. One look at the organic chemistry abstracts (that being my field) in JACS makes me want to vomit. Org Lett and JOC are more of the same crap. Compare this with 10 or 20 years ago, where almost every paper in the organic field was fascinating. People do the same thing over and over and over again, and tear down others for the pettiest of reasons (the irony of what I am saying here is not lost on me). How many worthy candidates will never even get the chance to be interviewed because they did their graduate work outside of the old boys club that is pervasive today? How many times can some professor publish the same permutation of their pet reaction that got them tenure while their students who will never get jobs were still in diapers?

  281. Total Synthesis is Cool Says:

    BASF, the largest chemical company in the world, is opening a West Coast Research Center at UC Berkeley.
    (http://chemistry.berkeley.edu/publications/news/2014/college_of_chemistry_launches_research_hub.php)
    Just a few months ago, Berkeley established the Kavli Energy NanoSciences Institute.
    ( http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/Kavli-ENSI-feature#.U0MkHqmPKM8)
    UC Berkeley Chemistry is having a lot of momentum recently.
    With the infusion of cash, expect UC Berkeley to be making a new wave of hiring in the next year or two, especially in the fields of Nano and MOFs.

  282. me Says:

    Bielawski to UNIST?! Not clear if this is a satellite group or complete move http://bit.ly/1gxE2dn

  283. Canadian Chemist Says:

    “After nearly 10 years in Austin, where Prof. Bielawski rose through the ranks, he moved to the Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea where he is currently a Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and the Coordinator for the Department of Chemistry.”
    Based on his bio (quoted above) that sounds like a real move…

  284. Josh Says:

    Korean universities are making a big push to hire senior American* chemists as heads of institutes or departments. I know of at least one more of these moves in the works.

    * I don’t know if it’s American specifically or just non-Korean

  285. u11 Says:

    Bielawski allegedly committed perjury during a lawsuit (J&J v. Rembrandt)

    http://www.law360.com/articles/463247/fed-circ-affirms-j-j-contact-lens-patent-victory

    Perhaps someone with more court-fu can shed light on this.

  286. anon Says:

    Bryan Dickinson will join U Chicago Chemistry:

    http://chemistry.uchicago.edu/news/news/index/id/191.html

  287. More hires Says:

    Prof. Bryan Wong is moving his research group from Drexel University to UC Riverside:

    http://www.bmwong-group.com/

  288. Anonymous Says:

    Gerald Knizia hired at Penn State (http://www.chem.psu.edu/about/chemistry-spotlights/gerald-knizia-joins-psu-faculty).

  289. Anonymous Says:

    Aaron K. Vannucci to University of South Carolina

    http://www.chem.sc.edu/people/facultyStaffDetails.asp?SID=1583

  290. InTheKnow Says:

    The UT purge continues: Eric Anslyn to Penn State in January

  291. Canadian Chemist Says:

    Ramesh Jasti poached by University of Oregon

  292. InTheKnow Says:

    Following up on Canadian Chemist

    It seems University of Oregon is in the midst of multiple supramolecular/material hires, including the poaching of another young PI from the northeast.

  293. YOLO Says:

    Sarah Wengryniuk and Graham Dobereiner new hires at Temple: https://chem.cst.temple.edu/news/

  294. Anonymous Says:

    M. Nippe to Texas A&M
    https://www.chem.tamu.edu/faculty/faculty_detail.php?ID=9009&bc=alpha

  295. Prognosticator Says:

    It looks like MacMillan’s crew cleaned up this year.

    Postdocs
    Martin – UC Riverside
    McNally – CSU

    Former PHDs
    Jui – Emory
    Nagib – OSU
    VanHumbeck – MIT

    And with several Baran alumni also starting their own labs in recent years (Burns, Guerrero, Maimone, Newhouse), perhaps we’re seeing a changing of the guard.

    I wonder how this will affect the future of organic chemistry…

  296. Changing indeed Says:

    With regards to the two posts above, the same thing could be said about Jeff Long (UC Berkeley)

    J. Van Humbeck and M. Nippe are current post-docs, and over the last few seasons he has had:

    Dinca (MIT), Rinehart (UCSD), Karunadasa (Stanford), Harris (Northwestern), Freedman (Northwestern). Not a bad track record.

  297. Louis Says:

    Abby Doyle to Columbia

  298. Anonymous Says:

    Jim Frederich hired at Florida State (http://www.chem.ucla.edu/harran/).

  299. bad wolf Says:

    I see Harran is celebrating getting a new NIH grant!

    Number of lives saved by Harran’s research: 0
    Number of lives lost in Harran’s research: 1

  300. Less Bad Wolf Says:

    Bad wolf–that seems a little harsh.

    However, in my mind, it raises some interesting questions. Is there fine print somewhere that says what happens with NIH funding if the PI is put in prison? Is it treated like being away from the lab for any other reason?

    Also, it would be interesting to hear whether the pending trial, and the implications that could have regarding whether Harran can accomplish the proposed work, was discussed.

  301. sdgaerh Says:

    Citation needed on the Doyle leaving Princeton comment.

  302. Curious Says:

    William Kittleman to Millersville University

  303. in the know Says:

    If its anywhere it BC not Columbia.

  304. SCH Says:

    I just wonder why people constantly pick on Abby Doyle and criticize whatever she does. She is a very nice and humble person. She does nice work and is nice to everyone even her competitors. Can people just leave her alone?

  305. ds Says:

    being nice has nothing to do with being a good chemist

  306. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    But being nice does have something to do with being a good advisor. There is no shortage of good chemists in the world. There is a shortage of nice people in the higher levels of academia, and that really sucks for a variety of reasons. Working for a good chemist who is nice, or fair is definitely preferable to the alternative. People hate on Doyle because she got a job without a post-doc, which they attribute to nepotism. Regardless of wether that is the case or not, Doyle obviously has done well in her career, by publishing work that the community deems important, and it is much harder to attribute that to nepotism. All the haters who are not willing to put their name to their comments could just have some jealousy. I am envious of her career path, but that doesn’t mean I am going to demean her. Would it be nice to have a professorship without a post-doc? Yes. Did I have the same track record in my PhD as she did? No.

  307. anon Says:

    Did anyone even pick on her here? SCH, why so defensive? I personally like her work. Who cares why or why not she got the position. She got it and is doing great chemistry.

  308. Confused Says:

    I believe that much earlier on there was a lot of negative discussion about Prof. Doyle.

    What I’m also confused with is why SCH thinks discussing her possible moves is ‘picking on’ her? If anything, the fact that other departments are trying to poach her as a senior hire suggests that there is widespread respect and acknowledgement of her work.

    I have heard the BC rumor for quite some time, but the Columbia rumor was totally new to me.

  309. confused 2 Says:

    what exactly has doyle contributed to the field?

  310. me Says:

    Doyle’s husband did not get tenure that’s why she is looking around!

  311. a chemist Says:

    As far as Abby Doyle goes, she came through my department a while back to give a talk and I was very impressed with her research. I went on her website and it seems in her independent career she has something like 7-9 JACS and Angewandte papers, which is pretty impressive for someone so early in her career.

    As far as her lack of postdoc goes, I have no insider information, but I assumed it had to being married to an economics academic rather than nepotism. Doing postdocs in economics is not a common practice as it is in chemistry, and being on different hiring cycles makes spousal hiring much more difficult (and more difficult down the road if tenure cycles are not aligned). Since Princeton has the #1 economics program in the country (tied with Harvard, MIT, and Chicago) her husband must have been a pretty impressive candidate. Hiring Abby (who clearly was an impressive graduate student, if she had the blessing of Jacobsen to go on to be an assistant professor without a postdoc) was likely a way for Princeton chemistry to gain a very talented female faculty member who otherwise would have looked elsewhere. Universities make exceptions all the time to accommodate spousal hires if the spousal hire is beneficial to them–i.e. drawing two talented candidates in. In all likelihood, it was the situation that made the most sense at the time for her with regard to coordinating both her and her husband’s careers, even if it has drawn some incredulity from the broader chemistry community. That seems far more likely to me than some sort of egotistical feeling that a postdoc is a waste of time.

    With regard to her husband not getting tenure (which doesn’t reflect on his abilities as an academic, since Princeton is a top economics department, and it’s like a chemistry faculty member not getting tenure at Harvard), it makes perfect sense that they would be looking elsewhere.

  312. Vastib Says:

    Three new hires at FSU:

    Justin Kennemur (postdoc Uof Minn)
    Yan-Yan Hu (postdoc Cambridge)
    Jim Frederich (postdoc UCLA)

    http://www.chem.fsu.edu/new-faculty.php

  313. Nick Says:

    There seems to be an inherent assumption (not just in these comments) that Prof. Doyle was the “trailing spouse” in the hiring process – why is this?

  314. a chemist Says:

    @ Nick. Mostly because she is a woman.

    In my comment above, I didn’t mean to imply she was a “trailing spouse” I just meant that when you deal with spousal hires, there are two people at play and sometimes one or both parties make compromises or do things in an unusual fashion to balance the needs of both parties. It seems that both she and her husband are incredibly talented people in totally different disciplines and they are navigating the system just fine. And there isn’t always a “trailing spouse” in spousal hires–sometimes both individuals are equally talented.

  315. at nick Says:

    considering at the time she started, princeton was #1 in economics and not even in the #10 in chemistry, it’s pretty obvious who the trailing spouse was

  316. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Heard through the grapevine that Ritter is moving to Max Planck.

  317. a chemist Says:

    One thing I find somewhat striking is how many very impressive under 40 women synthetic chemists come out of Jacobsen’s group. I mean Christina White, Abby Doyle, Sara Reisman, and Emily Balskus to name a few. When I go on his group page the gender ratio is much, much better than just about any other top notch, professor-maker synthetic group. And I’m excluding chemical biology groups, because obviously there are fantastic chemists like Carolyn Bertozzi and Chris Walsh who have fairly even gender ratios in their groups and in terms of people who go on to become faculty.

    Any reason for this? Is Jacobsen just not a sexist dick like a lot of hardcore synthesis people are?

  318. Anonymous Says:

    Bill Morandi (Grubbs postdoc, previously Careira PhD) also hired by Max Planck

  319. Anonymous Says:

    Eric Ferreira is moving to the University of Georgia.

    http://sites.chem.colostate.edu/ferreiralab/Ferreira_Research_Group/Home.html

  320. Curious Says:

    Does anyone know where Ray Moellering is going? He had one Nature paper during PhD with Greg Verdine at Harvard and a Science paper with Cravatt during postdoc. Google search tells that he interviewed in a few places but no official announcement online yet.

  321. curious 2.0 Says:

    yes, does anyone know where Ray Moellering is going?

  322. That guy Says:

    To a chemist says, Eric is just a nice guy, notice how he and Stuart are the only producers of black organic chemists from that department. It’s no coincidence, minorities tend to go places where they’re appreciated. I’ve been in both groups and they’re remarkable guys

  323. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Just pointing out Evans, Myers, Whitesides and Shair also have had black post-docs or grad students who are organic chemists in recent history.

  324. To Curious 1.0 & 2.0 Says:

    A friend currently in scripps said Moellering is going to Utah. Hard to believe a guy with his track record cannot go to any of the top 10 schools

  325. That guy Says:

    Can you name the graduate students? Cuz I know the last black guy from that dept was a theorist and the 2 before him are organic chemists, one of whom technically isn’t from the dept.

  326. a chemist Says:

    Who knows why he’s going to Utah and not a top 10 school. Perhaps his research interests did not meet the needs of any top 10 departments (i.e. they recently hired someone in that area), or maybe his spouse had personal reasons for wanting to be in Utah. There are all kinds of reasons why people make choices.

  327. Anon Says:

    I interviewed at Utah a couple years ago (didn’t get an offer there but ended up at a top-10 school) and they were my favorite department – very friendly and collegial, few barriers between divisions, beautiful location, cheap housing, easy airport access, etc. They also have a very close connection between the chem department and the med school that might be attractive to Moellering based on his previous research.

  328. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    I don’t feel comfortable naming people on this board just to single out their race. I just wanted to point out Schreiber and Jacobsen do not have a monopoly on recently educating black students at Harvard chemistry. I don’t want to start a debate on race or discrimination. With regards to grad students and post-docs, I am not making people up. The theorist grad student you referred to has a last name starts with W. I know Jacobsen’s student’s last name starts with L. One of Schreiber’s students names starts with S. As for the students I referred to, I’ll leave some clues if you care enough to search: Shair’s grad student is a lecturer at a university in Boston (though Shair’s website is not up to date with regards to their position). Myers’ post-doc is a prof at a university in Maryland. These are people who came through the department within the last 10 years. You can just go to Whitesides’ website and look at the make-up of his group. I certainly agree that african americans are underrepresented in Harvard chemistry, especially as grad students, with respect to their proportion of population, the same can be said about hispanics. Can the same be said about other chemistry departments around the country?

  329. anon Says:

    per moellering: rumor has it something really turned off a lot of schools where he’d interviewed.

  330. That guy Says:

    Welll as a whole, chemistry is behind the diversity curve. Btw S. Has aPhD in biophysics not chemistry

  331. That guy Says:

    Other than that you’re completely correct. I agree with the non-debate thing

  332. Anonymous Says:

    went to Moellering’s seminar at Harvard CCB and could back up the rumor anon mentioned earlier.

    also, no job posting from utah chem this past fall. i doubt the rumor that he is going to utah

  333. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    @That Guy, glad we agree , sorry if my last post came off as a little snarky. Re Moellering, I did see online somewhere he interviewed at Utah, so seems reasonable. Anyway, it is a great school, and talent can rise if it wants to. It has always struck me that the skill set to be a successful bench chemist and the skill set to be a successful PI do not always completely overlap.

  334. David Says:

    Ray interviewed at Utah:
    http://events.com/Salt-Lake-City-Utah/Education/Chemical-Biology-Faculty-Candidate-Ray-Moellering?eid=52f489e8bc205307b4408851

  335. Anonymous Says:

    alright, it is a position in biochem but not chem. i was talking about utah chem.

  336. Curious Says:

    Why is Ferreira moving to Georgia? Seems like a big step down. Is there something wrong with the program at Colorado State?

  337. LSMYI Says:

    Regarding Eric Ferreira and other recent departures at Colorado State.
    Organic chemistry @ Colorado State, 1972-2014.
    There are other faculty who are doing very well there (materials, chembio, etc.),
    but synthetic organic has taken a substantial series of recent hits, potentially self-imposed.

  338. AIM Says:

    John Wood left for Baylor last year. Now Eric Ferreira is moving to George. Yuan Shi is likely to move back to China. Bob Williams has not published any great papers for a while. It is sad to see Colorado will be one-man show (Tom Rovis) for synthetic organic. Because of the limited resources at Colorado State, it will be very challenging for Tom to build back a strong synthetic organic division there at Colorado State. Perhaps, Colorado State could not afford to make a counter offer to Eric Ferreira. I believe Georgia is trying to re-build the organic division there. Eric is clearly a good catch for them. In addition to his nice work, he has the energy and enthusiasm and gets along well with everyone. It is a gain for Georgia and a lost for Colorado State.

  339. Anon Says:

    Ferreira was denied tenure at CSU.

  340. cf Says:

    anyone know who’s being hired at stanford’s new CHEM-H program?

  341. More Fires Says:

    @ Anon Says. That seems hard to believe. I don’t understand that one at all.

  342. RealTalk Says:

    Confirmed:

    Ferreira was denied tenure at CSU.

  343. Curious Says:

    good pick up for wherever Ferreira is going.

  344. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    Several recent negative tenure decisions in synthetic organic chemistry – assume it’s a funding issue. I think expectations might need to be revised (and group sizes need to shrink) given how difficult it is to fund a synthetic program these days.

  345. anon Says:

    if you want to do synthetic chemistry, you basically have to work for baran, jacobsen, or macmillan.

  346. Anon Says:

    @ special guest lecturer. Ferreira has $$ (according to his website). I wonder what the deal was.

  347. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    Look at the dates of the grants. Ferreira’s grants (at least the R01) probably came in long after tenure was decided. I agree that Colorado State will miss him – not defending the tenure denial at all.

  348. Billiam Says:

    Speaking of tenure for junior faculty, does anybody know when Ted Betley @ Harvard goes up for tenure, or whether he has heard back?

  349. Scorned methods guy Says:

    “if you want to do synthetic chemistry, you basically have to work for baran, jacobsen, or macmillan.”

    Or some of the applied disciplies, ie Jeff Long, Carolyn Bertozzi. Seems like the time has rapidly approached that guys like Bob Grubbs, Sam, and EJ only place 0-1 people per year. Though the last Sam folks coming out may very well be set for a future that involves a heavy biological focus (Krauss).

  350. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    What a sad state of affairs, chemistry is so incestious.

  351. LSMYI Says:

    Looks like Colorado State denied Ferreira tenure, and then he quickly landed a large grant. Goes to show you that you shouldn’t tenure someone based on $$$$, but should focus on quality, momentum and trajectory. I saw him give a talk recently. He was clearly productive and doing well, so it was just a matter of time until a big grant landed. I really don’t understand decisions like this. I wonder what the issues are at Colorado.

  352. Administrative Viscosity Says:

    @LSMYI – agreed. Numerical metrics are the crutch of professors who never take the time to get to know their young colleagues as scholars. Expect to see more of this.

  353. OK Says:

    @LSMYI – My understanding is that money is only part of the equation when determining who gets offered tenure. Another key part is the letters from people in the field. I am sure the letters spoke very strongly about Ferreira, but maybe people were not as high on what he is researching and that played a role in the tenure decision…

  354. ccb Says:

    @OK. I suppose, but that is hard to digest given the publication record in high impact journals (JACS, Angew, Chem Sci). Clearly the work is well appreciated.

  355. a chemist Says:

    A similar situation in our department happened recently. The guy had an RO1, an NSF-CAREER, a great pedigree, a nice pub record, and shortly after he was denied tenure, a high profile nature paper. His RO1 wasn’t a completely independent RO1–it was a collaboration with another group in the biosciences, however the amount that his lab would receive was sufficient to maintain his research program at a high level. However, the fact that it was a collaborative RO1 was seen as a strike against him (and if you look Ferriera’s is a collaborative RO1 as well). That seems ridiculous to me given the current funding climate, but whatever.

    He was also just all around a good guy who was very supportive of graduate student’s careers–even those who were not his own, received a number of teaching awards, and was just generally a good faculty member. For some reason, he didn’t get tenure. It’s really the university’s loss. At the time, there was some grumbling among some of the senior faculty that his research program was not a good fit for the vision they had for the department. He got a great offer at another school that was similarly ranked and has a more vibrant chemical biology program anyway.

    I think the old guard organic chemists can sometimes be the most insular, nasty, resistant to change sort of people out there. Pedigree definitely helps in other areas of chemistry, but it is not a requirement the way that it seems to be in synthetic organic chemistry (like the comments above about everyone coming from Baran, Jacobsen, and MacMillan’s groups). And if you work for someone up and coming for your PhD and then work for a professor maker for postdoc, you’re competing against those who are double-pedigreed. And they haven’t adjusted their expectations for junior faculty in terms of ability to secure funding. There seems to be a lot of really shady political decisions lately that is really heavily weighted in terms of the biases of older, more senior faculty.

  356. Academic Viscosity Says:

    @a chemist – “At the time, there was some grumbling among some of the senior faculty that his research program was not a good fit for the vision they had for the department. ” –> absolute garbage. If he wasn’t a good fit, why was he hired in the first place? Worst argument your colleagues could have ever made – just illustrates their ineptitude in the initial hiring process, if true.

  357. aldol Says:

    I agree that the decision to not tenure Ferreira was very foolish and short-sighted.

  358. non-sufficient funds (NSF) Says:

    “a chemist” describes details that apply to very few people. One of them has been mentioned in this thread. For all you pre-tenure/tenure track folks reading here, this is more information than you are likely to see about a tenure case you’re not deciding yourself. Just sayin’…

  359. misterscampers Says:

    FWIW, I’m a grad student at a top 10 department that has granted on-site interviews to many candidates with Baran, Jacobsen, or MacMillan on their CVs. It may seem narrow at first, but each of these candidates has presented herculean reports of graduate and postdoctoral research. A Baran PhD on the R1 markets seems likely to have completed multiple first syntheses of nasty targets. Is pedigree overblown? Sure – but the most productive organic chemistry trainees are probably gravitating to a few groups. Vicious or virtuous cycle, depending on your perspective.

  360. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    The trendiness of the whole Baran Jacobsen MacMillan thing pisses me off. You could argue I did a hurculean amount of effort in my PhD with a famous advisor, but I didnt get any interviews for a variety of reasons, one of which is based on my PIs policy of not salami slicing work, so I have few papers, and another is this whole not trendy thing. Im bitter, but I guess also semi making an effort to stay anon, so I cant make a more compelling rant.

  361. anon Says:

    every generation has its own professor-makers. it’s only natural that the top students come from the top profs.

  362. Elias JC Says:

    Look, if you guys think that platinum cycloisomerization and hydrosilylation are ground-breaking work, you need to get off the internet and start reading more organic chemistry

  363. That guy Says:

    Anyone know what happened with the Harvard opening that was posted last year? Was the position filled? If so, by whom?

  364. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    Speedy Gonzales: Go count how many papers MacMillan has published – you will be surprised. His group is not salami slicing. Many of his students/postdocs on the academic job market are coming out with 1-2 papers that represent significant contributions – and rightfully getting interviews on that basis.

  365. im a pro Says:

    Look, if you guys think that forming an enamine is ground-breaking work, you need to get off the internet and start reading more organic chemistry.

  366. im a pro Says:

    The point of my last comment is that it’s very easy to overly simplify and diminish others work. We should be careful before we all start spouting off on whose work we do or don’t think is worthy of distinction. ALL of our work is largely based on findings from researchers who came before us. Almost none of the work out there is fundamentally new. Everything is incremental.

  367. KSH Says:

    @Billiam
    Just heard today (very credible source) that Ted Betley has been awarded tenure at Harvard.

  368. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    @SGL, point taken. I guess I didnt want to imply Baran, Jacobsen amd MacMillan salami slice, as they all publish comparatively little. They have the power to place people even if they publish very little. It is unfortunate for me that my grad advisor is not at the same level of trendiness. A lot of the non top ten type school jobs I applied for did go to people whose advisors were not trendy, but were into salami slicing, so I just found it tough to compete, even though I had worked on a more complicated project, because it was unfinished, it was unpublished.

  369. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Re Ferreira, I saw his tenure talk at my school, and while it was nice work, I dont think it was up to the level that has been getting tenure at that calibre of school (I would argue Vy Dong at Toronto represents a similar clibre of school witha far more impressive collection of work). I don’t think Ferreira’s talk was well recieved.

  370. OK Says:

    @speedygonzales. your penultimate comment makes me disregard your last comment.

  371. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    I just would argue the a lot of the alkyne rearrangement stuff looks familiar (Toste and Sarpong do such chemistry among others), and some hydrosilylation work with platinum looks like a lot of chemistry we saw in the early 90’s. I don’t know what the magic formula for organic tenure is nowadays, but I guess you need big substrate scopes, lots of aromatic rings, and some kind of trendy “new” transformation. I guess the community doesn’t think silicon is sexy. To be honest, I wouldn’t base my career on rhodium either… but the community seems to like that. What do I know, I am not even worthy of being a professor, so my comments need not be taken at face value.

  372. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    I think that Vy Dong is a borderline superstar, not a good example of where the bar for tenure should be at either Toronto or Colorado State.

  373. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    True, Datong Song and Mark Taylor both had fewer pubs, and got tenure. Not too familliar with Song’s work, but Taylor did some very creative work with a lot of potential utility. Anyway, history could prove me wrong. Long ago on this blog some anon user commented they doubted Corey Stephensen had potential ( it was some thread from before the whole Ritter, Dong, Garg, Stephensen generation had many, if any pubs).

  374. Pubs don't tell the whole story Says:

    Let’s say that Vy Dong’s management style was not well received by her colleagues

  375. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Interesting to know. Canadian academia has a reputation of being more chill and laid back. There are many PIs in Canada who were trained in the American system and who nicely adapt, but I suppose there are those that don’t, and eventually want to move on to higher and greener pastures.

  376. Anon Says:

    Alexander M. Spokoyny to UCLA (credible source)

  377. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    Every time I hear an unsubstantiated rumor about a PI’s management style, I feel a little stupider for reading and commenting in this thread.

  378. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Meh, this thread is my guilty pleasure. I dont believe half the shit I read because under the cloak of anonominity any bitter troll ( and I sure am bitter) can say whatever. It is an interesting insight into the pathology of some subset of the community.

  379. anon Says:

    anyone know which schools are hiring this next year?

  380. chem Says:

    how much do postdocs make nowadays? what are the highest paid fellowships?

  381. more hires Says:

    Severin Schneebeli – Vermont
    Matt Cain – Hawaii
    Raymond Moellering – Chicago

  382. baddog Says:

    Christopher Johnson to Stony Brook

  383. RichyRich Says:

    I’m wondering if any Baran people are coming out (aside from the post doc headed to temple). I seem to remember Andy Myers giving a seminar out here on the west coast, mentioning that the guy who finished palauamine would be on the market this year.

    Also, seems as though no Jacobsen people landed this year.

  384. Confused Says:

    Ray Moellering to Utah or Chicago? Any official evidence?

  385. Anonymous Says:

    Chicago: http://chemistry.uchicago.edu/news/news/index/id/199.html

  386. Tiger Chem Says:

    Nozomi Ando to Princeton

  387. anonymous Says:

    yes, Chicago, and I hear, not everyone there was on board with that…

  388. chicago Says:

    anonymous…can you be more specific?

  389. Poor pdoc Says:

    Most make 38 at NIH min. Best fellowships can pay in 50s. Good pay for an easy job

  390. a chemist Says:

    NIH just redid their pay scale. Now it starts at 42. A lot of universities scale to the NIH pay scale. The best fellowships pay in the 50s, but they are competitive.

  391. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Many postdocs get paid under the NIH minimum if they dont have a fellowship. I`ve heard some prominent profs pay around 30 grand (ie a grad student salary), to postdocs without a fellowship,, but working for them is a privellage.

  392. Anon Says:

    I think this varies a great deal by location (ie: cost of living). Here (middle of country), grad students get ~$23K/year, and a typical postdoc salary would be $35-40K.

  393. BallinPostDoc Says:

    The DOE NNSA National Laboratories have salaries around 70K for postdocs.

  394. Nick Says:

    Is Moellering’s work controversial? Or is it more of a personality issue?

  395. a chemist Says:

    Yeah, it just depends. At my university postdoc pay is totally at the discretion of the advisor, and I’ve heard of as low as 30-35K. However, some other schools have institutional policies to scale to the NIH scale–I know the UC schools, MIT, and Stanford (although these might just be heavily encouraged guidelines rather than absolute rules).

  396. poor pdoc Says:

    real question is how much are faculty being paid these days…

  397. Ian Says:

    the Chronicle of Higher Ed annually publishes an interactive database on how much faculty are being paid, via AAUP: http://chronicle.com/article/2013-14-AAUP-Faculty-Salary/145679?cid=megamenu#id=table

  398. RealTalk Says:

    what is the deal with Moellering?

  399. RealRealTalk Says:

    @realtalk, none of your (or anybody else’s) business

  400. RealTalk Says:

    @RealRealTalk don’t get so uppity. He did a good enough job to get a great job. Just figured maybe there would be some sharing of experiences, so others don’t make the same mistakes. I doubt someone would randomly say something unless there was some feeling around there about it.

  401. RealRealTalk Says:

    a very small set of people are involved in making faculty hire decisions and perhaps are the only ones who really know what went on behind closed doors. i doubt any of them will replying to your post the details on what “the deal” was with a particular candidate. if you’re looking for advice on how to do the best you can during your own job search, or if you’re trying to help other people out by bringing to light what-not-to-do during a job interview, you might ask in general terms rather than soliciting anonymous (and probably unqualified) speculations about a specific scientist. this is how rumors get started. and rumors are why i went to prom by myself (rumors and a my general lack of personal hygiene in hs). the people pointed out by name on this post are members of our community–and they’re going to stay members of our community for a long time–give them the respect they deserve. these folks don’t need the details of their job hunt (good parts and bad) paraded around on the internet. fine, i’m uppity for this, whatever.

  402. RealTalk Says:

    @RealRealTalk Good points. A lot of respect for Moellering. That is why I was curious. I was just surprised. Just don’t carry around your lack of prom date for too much longer. That will weigh on you!

  403. Old Biddy Says:

    @ REalRealTalk – Having been through a lot of interviews myself, and then observed a lot from the other side, I have some very general observations (in addition to the obvious stuff, such as a stellar CV and recommendations, very good proposals, and research interests that are in line with what is desired).

    Short answer – it’s tougher than it looks. If someone doesn’t get an offer, or doesn’t get a ton of offers, it doesn’t mean they are incompetent or an asshole. Practice your seminar and proposal talks so much that you could give them in your sleep. Read up on general interviewing techniques, how to make a good first impression, etc. Develop a thick skin, be ready for anything, and don’t take anything personally.

    Longer answer…

    First of all, a successful candidate needs to “click” with a majority of the influential members of the search committee and the department as a whole. There is an element of general interview skills involved in this, as well as charisma/extroversion and a more vague “fit” element. I’m an introvert and am not great at making a good first impression, so there were a lot of interviews where I did not immediately click with the department, and a few where I did. Keep in mind that one department’s perfect fit may be another department’s “WTF?!?!”, and some departments have a lot of people with strong and differing opinions. Sometimes this is obvious even to the grad students/postdocs, but other times it’s not obvious to people outside of the faculty. For candidates who are under-represented minorities or female, they may have an extra hurdle in “clicking”. It’s a lot better than it was 20 years ago but unfortunately is still a factor.

    Second, an academic interview is typically 1-2 days of one on one meetings, a seminar and a proposal talk. It’s quite stressful and tiring. Add travel delays, jet lag, and possibly a few back to back interview trips, and there’s a good possibility that most candidates are not 100% during their interview. So this will play into how well the candidate does, especially in terms of making a general good impression. Sometimes little random schedule quirks can throw a monkey wrench into things. I had one interview where they scheduled a meeting with the dean right before the proposal talk. It was snowing, and the dean was long winded. So I had to rush across campus, in heels, in the snow. I was freezing my ass off, and was not at my best during the proposal talk.

    Lastly, departments do not always make an offer to the second choice, if the first choice turns them down. Or the process takes a while and by then the second choice candidate has accepted another offer.

  404. anonymous Says:

    leave britney alone!

  405. RealRealRealTalk Says:

    @realrealtalk, if you don’t to hear someone else’s business, why are you even at this website? the whole purpose of it is to share gossip

  406. Realtalk4Real Says:

    @ all the realtalks, this is what your usernames remind me of:
    http://twitpic.com/e3t36w/full

  407. Anonymous Says:

    well, i am not one of those faculties to decide Moellering’s offer at chicago. I did go to his seminar and i thought it was outstanding work! the guy sitting next to me said that Moellering was an a-hole at Harvard and definitely not a nice guy you want as a colleague. i guess there might be some personality issue but I have to say, i think he got an outstanding story in the seminar.

  408. that guy Says:

    It’d be really cool if there was a 2013-2014 version of this post.

  409. YOLO Says:

    See Arr Oh has us covered!

    http://justlikecooking.blogspot.com/2014/06/chemistry-bumper-cars-2014-2015.html

  410. That guy Says:

    Anyone know what happened to Alan Saghatellian from Harvard?

  411. KSH Says:

    Regarding the discussion of SpeedyGonzales and Special Guest Lecturer (sorry for going off topic).
    Personally, I enjoy learning a bit about the management style of the different PI’s out there, and I am sure I am not the only one. I think the reason is that a lot of us want to go and work (as grad students or post docs) in groups where you are being treated okay, and unfortunately those groups seem increasingly diffycult to find, especially at the reputable American universities.
    Anybody who knows a good platform for sharing experiences with being in different groups?

  412. RealTalk Says:

    @That guy

    Alan Saghatellian was denied tenure — which is unfortunate, because he has made some strong contributions, not only methodologically, but also in regards to our understanding of alternative translation initiation and the translation of uORFS.

    Last I heard he had accepted a position at The Salk Institute. If this is true that is a great move for him. More scientific freedom and San Diego is a hotbed for the type of research he is doing. Best of luck to him!

  413. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    KSH – I agree, but a comment by “Publications don’t tell the whole story” that says “Let’s just say that Prof. X’s management style was not well received by her colleagues” is snarky, irrelevant, and uninformative. Aside from the fact that it is hard to refute unless a Toronto Prof. wants to comment, it’s just mudslinging – what does the poster mean? If true, is it Prof. Dong’s fault? Or are her colleagues set in their ways or otherwise unreasonable? How important are relationships with colleagues when evaluating the research prowess of a faculty member? Is this sour grapes because she accepted an outside offer? Who knows.

    In contrast, a comment like “I’m a former student in Prof. X’s group, and he/she was unhelpful, made us work 100 hours a week, and didn’t support group members in their job searches.” actually gives insight that might be of general use to those interested in joining a particular group.

  414. KSH Says:

    @SGL
    I totally agree with you on that. Anyway, my focus is actually not so much on the discussion on Prof. Dong, but more if there in general exist a good source of information of the different groups and their professors. I am familiar with ratemyprofessor, however, that seems to be mostly focused on the courses they are teaching.
    I am aware that it is not the most serious site, but a higher quality counterpart may exist, which I am not aware of.

  415. tiredofthis Says:

    I would characterize this stream as having been written by a bunch of nobody graduate students who are looking for postdocs in nice (friendly) labs, and are not good enough to automatically get into whatever lab they like. Alternatively, they’re pissed of postdocs who suck, and harbor animosity because they didn’t land a faculty position at all, or in a reputable department.

    It is obnoxious that you anonymously make negative comments about folks who are actually doing it (were excellent graduate students and postdocs in the best labs, and got faculty positions in great departments). Your data-free comments and assessments on this website are completely irresponsible and you should be ashamed. I can only imagine what your bosses and/or colleagues would post about most of you. Just keep in mind that your not being called out here because you’re nobody and nobody would care.

  416. agree! Says:

    @tiredofthis:

    what is YOUR real name!??!?!?!??! Im surprised that you would go on such a rant and not reveal yourself. How can we take what you say seriously when you are so hypocritical?

  417. tiredofthis Says:

    I’m not calling anyone out by name.

  418. agree! Says:

    @tiredofthis: thanks for your useless, non-named contribution.

    “you are the weakest link in this thread. goodbye.”

  419. tiredofthis Says:

    seems I struck a nerve; my comments must have been dead on. well, I look forward to kindly perusing your application to my lab before I put it in the trash.

  420. agree! Says:

    @tiredofthis: Please leave name, so I can reply. Stop hiding!

  421. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Meh, I won’t lose any sleep about what one anonymous commentator says to another. I did my PhD with a well known PI, got a post-doc with another well known PI, and I know lots of my bosses and colleagues respect and appreciate me. I am somewhat bitter about the state of the field, because I think there is a glut of well qualified people for few jobs, and there is no sign of that trend abating, because there does not seem to be a correction in the number of graduate students accepted into most programs. When I started out in grad school 8 years ago, some warning signs were there in retrospect, but I think few people could have imagined the carnage that would take place in industry and academia. Problem is there is already a huge lag because it takes so long to train to be a professor. I struck out on the job search last year, but I will try again this year.

  422. Rationalthinker Says:

    @agree!

    I do agree and believe that the unsuccessful ones will always be the loudest and any blog dedicated to ranting about PIs will never be representative.

  423. German Chemist Says:

    Webconfirmation for Bill Morandi (Carreira/Grubbs) at Max-Planck: http://www.kofo.mpg.de/morandi and http://www.morandilab.com.

  424. See Arr Oh Says:

    @German Chemist – If you’d like to take a look at the 2014-2015 list, just click my name. Bill Morandi is on there. Know about any others?

  425. Maxi Says:

    Carolyn Bertozzi to Stanford!!!

    http://chemistry.stanford.edu/chemistrynews/carolyn-bertozzi-join-chem-h

  426. a Says:

    wow berkeley lost a star there. what would people ballpark a recruitment package for her to be?
    I talked to one of the people tasked with retention at berkeley; they are having a rough time…..

  427. anon Says:

    I second the request for a 2013-2014 list. I’ll start. I hear Mei Hong is leaving Iowa State for MIT and Brian Shoichet is going *BACK* to UCSF.

  428. MIT Says:

    Alice Ting leaving MIT. Can anyone confirm?

  429. anon Says:

    yes, does anyone know what is happening with Alice Ting? I saw her give a talk on the west coast recently, likely as a recruitment.

  430. SCH Says:

    I know that Alice Ting is close to Carolyn Bertozzi. Stanford has recently established Institute of Chemical Biology (ChEM) and has recruited Bertozzi and other top chemical biologists (e.g. Peter Kim, a former president at Merck). It will not be surprised if Stanford tries to recruit Alice Ting.
    I also heard that David Liu visited Stanford few times. David Liu was quite upset that Alan Saghatelian did not get tenure at Harvard.

  431. Poaching Says:

    Which young faculty are most susceptible to getting poached?

  432. Poaching2 Says:

    My opinion (speculation) on young profs who could move: Guangbing Dong, Will Dichtel, Abby Doyle, Sara Skrabalak, Neil Garg, and of course, Phil Baran accelerating the Great Scripps Meltdown.

  433. See Arr Oh Says:

    Ritter’s leaving Harvard. There’s talk round the water cooler of Siegel, Doyle, and Phillips moving.
    Anyone else? Come say hello at JLC: http://justlikecooking.blogspot.com/2014/06/chemistry-bumper-cars-2014-2015.html

  434. KCN Says:

    Wondering if Prof. MacMillan is gonna have 1000 people on market this year. Seems he’s taking over someone’s leadership.

  435. anon Says:

    any news on Ting?

  436. aldoltoinfinity Says:

    MacMillan is overrated. Get off your knees folks.

  437. rezel Says:

    MacMillan put several people to academia last year. He has 2-3 more for this year.

  438. academic Says:

    I didn’t know that putting people into academia means you’re actually doing good science. Gosh – we are so superficial!

  439. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    Academia is politics. Papers are coin of the land. MacMillan and Jacobsen do good science, and they are good politicians. There could be a long list of good scientists who are bad at politics. There could be a shorter list of the inverse. The longest list would be those who arent the greatest at either, but their names arent usually subject to gossip on this blog. Being invisible isnt all that bad sometimes.

  440. in the know Says:

    Speedy may be on to something. Word is some papers appear after considerable pressure has been applied.

  441. nytimes Says:

    Re: Speedy may be on to something. Word is some papers appear after considerable pressure has been applied.

    I’m sure that’s the case

  442. commenter Says:

    you know, this bracher fellow seems to be keen on perpetuating rumors, judging who is or is not worthy of particular jobs…but I am left wondering: what has accomplished in his career thus far?

  443. Ivy Leaguer Says:

    The new ARWU world university Chemistry Ranking just came out and UC Berkeley Chemistry knocked Harvard off to become the new number one for the first time ever. It is obvious that ranking is not everything so people can save a few lectures here. It is interesting, however, to examine and discuss the difference in the hiring strategies of the top chemistry departments. UC Berkeley for the past three years has poached some of the most highly cited BIG NAME superstars, and the payoff was immediate, not just for the ranking but also funding, and prestige. Harvard and MIT, on the other hand, had focused more on hiring GOOD professors from the traditional fields. I wonder if this is the right “bet” for Harvard and MIT in the long run.

  444. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    Maybe UC-Berkeley advanced in the rankings over Harvard, but Harvard chemistry ain’t what it used to be. Very unbalanced department and not the organic chemistry powerhouse it once was.

    Plus losing Bertozzi is huge. I think Yaghi + Hartwig << Bertozzi.

  445. Poor pdoc Says:

    Yes, organic and chemical biology, Harvard powerhouses even five years ago, are gone now. Agreed on bertozzi, we’ll see how Berkeley looks in a few years.

  446. SpeedyGonzales Says:

    The decline of Harvard Chemistry is probably a reflection on the state of the field of Organic chemistry in general. A good indicator of the danger of putting all your eggs in one basket, however for what it’s worth, Harvard is awesome in a lot of spectroscopy type science related to living systems.

  447. Concerned Says:

    It is difficult for me to see Harvard’s continuous decline. They have abandoned their STAR hiring practice which made them great before, and made quite a few questionable recent hires and tenures. As a relatively small department, this will have a long lasting impact. Once a department becomes mediocre, it will be so much harder for it to rise up again. It seems Harvard has been over-compensating due to people’s criticism of them being too harsh and non-nurturing. Furthermore, Harvard is too conservative in restricting itself to focusing on only the hardcore Organic, Organometallics, and Bio-Imaging areas. They are completely missing out on the fast moving new fields. Plus, hiring professors’ own students doesn’t help either.

  448. DisgruntledParrot Says:

    Meh, I’m sure the tenured professors at Harvard don’t lose sleep at night over the situation. The whole attitude of that department needs an adjustment.

  449. Anonymous Says:

    @Special Guest Lecturer

    Whilst he may rub some people up the wrong way, Yaghi was the second highest cited chemist of the past decade, and is well on his way to repeating that feat in this decade. Bertozzi is a big loss and a huge coup for Stanford, but bringing in Yaghi counterbalances that nicely (in my opinion!).

  450. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    I respectfully disagree and believe that citation stats are irrelevant when comparing one outstanding researcher with another, particularly across chemical or scientific subfields. Check out the full top 10 or top 20 – no way is that a ranked list of the most important chemists of the last 10 years.

    Citation rates are highly sensitive to “churn” – a combination of the number of researchers in a field and a low amount of effort/publishable unit (compare the human effort needed to publish a MOF JACS paper vs. a total synthesis JACS paper, for example). The field of framework materials is the perfect storm of these factors. Combine that with being early to a field and a relentless propensity for self-citation…

    There is no doubt that Yaghi is an highly important and influential chemist, but I think his singular biggest accomplishment is in promoting his field (and simultaneously, himself). Much of the groundwork for the field was really pioneered by others.

    I think Bertozzi is truly a gem – one of the most original and creative chemists of her generation – and is truly irreplaceable. This view comes from a holistic view of their research programs – not paper counting.

  451. Anonymous Says:

    I fully understand why you disagree, but I used the citation stats as (for better or for worse) they are extremely important to the big research institutions and how they are viewed by funding agencies and industry. From that viewpoint, Yaghi is as “important” as almost any chemist out there.

    The relative importance of a scientist based on their creativity, originality and skill level, however, is a completely different argument and is mostly down to personal taste. I myself am an organometallic chemist, and so whilst I trust my bioorganic peers’ opinion of Bertozzi, who is clearly a world-leading chemist and has a brilliant mind, I am simply not interested in that sort of chemistry, and so I would always lean towards (for example) Hartwig.

    Also, I think we should refrain from attempting to compare like-for-like human effort in different areas of chemistry, as this is always misleading. It sounds corny, but at the end of the day, the quality of the work is all that matters. On the whole, if it’s in JACS or Angewandte, then it deserves to be there. As for Yaghi, as I said, he rubs people up the wrong way! People in the MOF world that I know don’t particularly like him, but they begrudgingly admit that the quality of his work is beyond reproach and worthy of his promotion.

  452. Anonymous Plus One Says:

    Fully agreed with Anonymous.

    In a peer-reviewed, peer-assessed business like ours, if one can be exceptionally successful and remained a pioneer and a leading figure for as long as 20 years in chemistry, and at the same time “rubbing people the wrong way” left and right, his quality of work must be of the highest possible caliber.

  453. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    The top 100 cited chemists over the last decade is here:
    http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/sci/misc/Top100Chemists2000-10/

    The list is obviously ridiculous if viewed as an indicator of scientific importance, as it is absolutely dominated by researchers in nanomaterials and synthetic methods – fields with lots of churn. No true biochemists are on it as far as I can tell. If you think a B+ materials chemist positioned at #50 on that list is more valuable to a department than a superstar in a non-represented sub-discipline, I don’t know what to tell you.

    Put another way: if trading academics worked the same as it does in professional sports, I will bet you that Berkeley would happily send Yaghi to Stanford if it meant they could keep Bertozzi.

  454. Nothing Special Says:

    I heard from a Stanford faculty that Stanford also attempted to recruit Yaghi, but was unsuccessful.

  455. Leave a Reply Says:

    @Special Guest Lecturer

    I am not sure I followed your logic here at all.
    Are you saying that Lieber, Yaghi, and Alivisatos are all not as valuable to a department as Bertozzi because they just happened to be in rapidly expanding fields? Make no mistake here, they are all the pioneers and non-disputed leaders in their prospective fields, which is not trivial. To say something as uneducated as you did actually reflected badly on you.

  456. Special Guest Lecturer Says:

    That is not what I’m saying at all. Being in a rapidly expanding field is generally a good thing. It is definitely a recipe for generating the maximum number of citations, particularly if the barrier to entry to the field is low. But generating a ton of citations does not mean that a scientist is “better” or “more valuable” than a scientist in a different sub-field. In this particular case, I view Bertozzi as a much more creative, interesting, and effective scientist than Yaghi. I said nothing about the relative merits of Lieber and Alivisatos.

    But again, that page is essentially a (poorly) ranked list of top materials and synthetic methods people. Almost no non-nano p-chemists on it either. No Graham Fleming and no Harry Gray, yet Valery Fokin is #9? Get real.

  457. Anonymous Says:

    In your haste to slam the impact rankings, you missed my point (and Stuart Schreiber, who’s on that list). I, personally, am not a massive fan of impact factors/h-indices etc. However, research-led universities and those who fund them definitely are! Time and time again, they have used these numbers to make their case to funding bodies, and time and time again we have seen that those institutions that generate big numbers get the most money. This is why I said that Berkeley would not be too downhearted about losing Bertozzi. In fact, BASF have very recently made Berkeley their main California research hub, with Yaghi and Peidong Yang leading efforts there.

    In any case, what would you have funding bodies do? There is absolutely no way to quantify creativity, whilst the only way we have to quantify interest is (again, for better or for worse) number of citations! As for effectiveness, perhaps number of awards/patents/start-ups/industrial collaborations could be used? Again, all of this comes down to personal taste. In my (organometallic) view, Kit Cummins is the most talented, most creative and brilliant chemist of the past 20 years. His problem is that he mainly works in fundamental main group chemistry, which is not in vogue and does not generate a ton of papers or citations.

    Finally, again from my organometallic point of view, the big three areas that always get the most funding are bio, nano and materials, so I have no sympathy for the bio guys when it comes to funding!

  458. Anonymous Plus One Says:

    Also note that the trio of Alivisatos-Yaghi-Yang recently landed the Kavli Energy NanoScience Institute. In the press release, the Kavli foundation publicly acknowledged that Berkeley won over many other competitors because of this most cited, highly visible team, and the visionary proposal they put together. If you look carefully, all three of them are among the top 10 most cited chemists on that list. Big names and high ranking brought in big money, and we are talking about close to 50 millions dollars flowing to Berkeley here.

  459. You Can Make One Up Says:

    There is no doubt that Yaghi’s joining Berkeley was the main factor that pushed Berkeley over Harvard to become the number one chemistry department in the world, because the ranking methodology emphasized heavily on overall institutional citation and the number of Nature and Science papers. You can argue anything you want about the rankings, but one thing is for sure — Harvard is not feeling too good about it!

    In my opinion, this is the one of the best high-impact hire by UC Berkeley in recent history!

  460. Leave a Reply Says:

    @Special Guest Lecture,

    Would Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, and Caltech love to have Bertozzi? — YOU BET!!!
    Would Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, and Caltech love to have Yaghi? — YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT!!!

    One is a brilliant mind in Bio-Organic world, the other is a pioneer in Solid State/Materials Chemistry.
    The fact is that top departments fight tooth and nail over them, and one can never have too many superstars.
    The current system of any ranking attempting to compare them is imperfect, so is your personally biased justification.

    Maybe it is easier for you to comprehend if I put it in the sports term which you seem to gravitate toward:
    Different sports have different fan base, draw in different amount of money, and get variation in publicity.
    Some people rank the yearly income of all sports players, some rank the market value each player generates, some rank the fan base of each player. They are not good comparisons, but at least provide a starting point.
    But just because you like golf more, it doesn’t mean that you can say Tiger Woods is a more athletic, interesting, and effective player than LeBron James of NBA basketball.

  461. Poor pdoc Says:

    Man you all are getting so hot and bothered about people who actually DO something. I love bertozzi! I love yaghi! Go back to playing magic or dungeons and dragons or something more useful than grovelling about these academics.

  462. Max Says:

    Timothy Bertram from UCSD to Wisconsin!
    https://www.chem.wisc.edu/users/tbertram

  463. Anonymous Says:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/comments/2fo32t/mit_chemistry_graduate_student_found_dead/

  464. anon Says:

    Does anyone know where MIchael Marletta is going now?

  465. anon Says:

    Word on the street is that UCB would be happy to have Marletta back… remains to be seen though….

  466. Curious Says:

    I heard that Sigman is considering leaving Utah for either UC-Irvine or MIT. Anyone heard the same?

  467. bio gets funded - right? Says:

    this notion that ‘bio’ people automatically get money is nonsense. they work just as hard for it as everyone else and their science is typically much more expensive (like 3-5x what organic costs) and often much slower.

  468. Max Says:

    Eran Rabani
    Tel Aviv University to UC Berkeley
    http://chem.berkeley.edu/faculty/rabani/index.php

  469. rezel Says:

    No MacMillan people on the market this year? Unimaginable.

  470. Made up Says:

    Shoichet can’t decide where he wants to be a professor, let alone if he wants to mentor students, do real science, or just start companies that fail and pretend he knows something. His PhD was fraudulent and he should probably quit fucking around with science.

  471. 2 made up Says:

    Made up,
    It is wildly irresponsible to make such a statement, particularly an anonymous one. You can never undue negative and unfair comments like this one. You should be ashamed.

  472. anon Says:

    this page is full of negative and unfair comments…and nearly all of them are made up.

  473. RHCP Says:

    Bringing up a dead horse- naughty wolf once stated on this blog that there are some new faculty that have disproportionate publication records over those that failed to obtain academic positions. The predominant opinion was that the ability to create a successful research group was not necessarily equal to that of the number of 1st authored manuscripts. Lets take a second look- case in point- Prof. Christine Payne of Ga. Tech Chem. 2(3) first authors pubs out of 14 before an academic appointment (the 3 refers to an article w/o a faculty advisor acknowledged). And how has time been good to Prof. Payne? Not so much. A lot of grants and pubs (25), yet an H-index of 7, and most pubs have 0 citations because they are in very low-level journals. Worst- one article- J. Phys. Chem. B, 113 (2), 405-408 (2009) was at first labeled as an “uh-oh” in a follow-up manuscript- J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 1, 1312–1315 (2010); and later the original JPCB article was retracted in full probably due to external pressure concerning a “100% incorrect” manuscript. They even retracted the zeta potential data on their particles, which is a fairly impossible thing to get wrong. Apparently Prof. Payne kept the NIH funding that was based on this retracted article, which probably had a significant impact on promotion.
    My point being that there are examples of faculty that had weak records before academic appointments that did do spectacularly well, but there are other examples of catastrophic failures. Maybe there is no telling?

  474. anon Says:

    what are you talking about RHCP? Haven’t you learned that an N-of-1 means nothing? Can’t tell if you are saying she did or didn’t do well?? Maybe she got promoted because she had funding and is a woman at a state school…reality check.

  475. RHCP Says:

    Sry anon your right, my post was nonsensical. I got interested in the previous discussion on “who did gud” and who didn’t. My point is that I can first state that a faculty produced ~25 pubs and generated ~$3M in funding (from university web site), which is a smashing success. However, I could have also first stated that all the papers produced a low number of citations and funding (from NIH web site) was based on an article that was later retracted. Prob. not so successful. So what is the answer? Again my point is that there is no telling. Most my advisors tell me not to seek an academic position no matter what due to lack of funding, so my discussion is inherently irrelevant to begin with. Thanks for the wake up anon, hope this is more clear.

  476. anon Says:

    Agreed on many of these points. However, a few things to keep in mind: 1) just because someone lands a job does not mean they will do well after, at a minimum new science is an experiment in and of itself – projects may fail. 2) Chemists need to join other disciplines and stop counting papers. It’s not quantity, it’s quality, and as you say, 20+ papers with no citations several years out might as well be no papers…I’d much rather have a colleague that publishes few, important papers than dozens of crap papers.

  477. general electric servis Says:

    this notion that ‘bio’ people automatically get money is nonsense. they work just as hard for it as everyone else and their science is typically much more expensive (like 3-5x what organic costs) and often much slower.

  478. eugene Says:

    Bartosz Grzybowski to UNIST from Northwestern! Bam! (Do I win the thread or break the internet?)

    But also over the last two years:

    Steve Granick to UNIST from Illinois
    Rodney Ruoff to UNIST from Texas, Austin
    Christopher Bielawski to UNIST from Texas, Austin
    Wonyoung Choe to UNIST from University of Nebraska
    Jan-Uwe Rohde to UNIST from University of Iowa
    Mi Hee Lim to UNIST from University of Michigan
    Thomas Schultz, from FU Berlin to UNIST (outlier…)

    And those are just moves. Is there some problem with funding in the States or something that I missed? More assistant professor jobs in the States have just freed up! (or not) 😀

    Or maybe UNIST just has a ton of money.

  479. Health Tourism Says:

    what are you talking about RHCP? Haven’t you learned that an N-of-1 means nothing? Can’t tell if you are saying she did or didn’t do well?? Maybe she got promoted because she had funding and is a woman at a state school…reality check.

  480. anon Says:

    Re: UNIST

    It’s both. I talked to one of the faculty members you mentioned above, and he said that it was an incredible offer. A huge personal salary and a huge amount of money to run his lab, way more than he would ever get anywhere in the US or Europe (by a huge margin). South Korea wants to be seen at the same level as Western countries as a research powerhouse, and they are doing that by luring Western scientists over with offers they can’t refuse.

    But on top of that, funding in the US has been pretty bleak lately. The NIH paylines have been extremely low for a while now. With the sequester, all discretionary funding was slashed, which means the NIH, NSF, DOE, etc. budgets. State universities are in constant budgetary crises, because less and less of their operating budget is coming from the state, and more of it is raised through tuition/overhead/donations. A lot of people are having trouble raising enough grant funding to keep their labs going, and at larger schools, especially in chemistry, more and more people rely on TA positions to fund their grad students.

  481. anon Says:

    Given the fact that Bielawski fled Texas after a series of retractions and a court witness testimony perjury and Grzybowski had several pending harassment charges against him pending at Northwester, UNIST is not super serious about their reputation.

  482. Anon Says:

    See Arr Oh has a new one up for this year: http://justlikecooking.blogspot.com/2015/01/chemistry-bumper-cars-2015-2016.html.

  483. Dead Thread Says:

    Is this thread
    finally dead?

  484. CITCCE Says:

    Stoltz didn’t misplace his chair, it was a slap on the wrist from Barton for an indiscretion in the UK.

  485. CITCCEPostdoc Says:

    CITCCE, who might you be at Caltech? Quite the insider information right there…

  486. this contact form Says:

    Wonderful post!We are linking to this contact form great article on our site.
    Keep up the good writing.

  487. DAYO ADEOGUN Says:

    PROJECT FEED
    My name is DAYO ADEOGUN, am a man of 37yrs of age, and a caterer from Nigeria. Money never replaces purpose. When you find the things you’d gladly do for free there’s a good chance you’ve found your calling. You were made in the image of God with a built – in drive to create. That doesn’t mean you must. Have an artistic temperament to find your life’s purpose. But everyone who’s aware of their calling is in the process of giving birth to something. It may seem obvious that those who are song writers, artists, and poets are giving birth to their dreams. But so is any one of us who discover who he or she is, and answers that call through their unique gift. You may be called to give birth to a business, 0r invent a technical device that will benefit others, or discover a cure for some disease, or find new systems of efficiency in the workplace. Benjamin Franklin once said: you may delay, but the time will not. That is why I am introducing the project I tagged, OPERATION FEED THE PEOPLE. In Lagos Nigeria we have the population of over sixty million and my plan is to be feeding over two million people every day, because I know, in my country Nigeria. With the suffering that is going on now, because it is only the rich people that is enjoying and they are not ready to help. i would be needing TWO HUNDRED MILLION for this project and I need some help to achieve this, I don’t want somebody to hijack my project please I need ur financial support and backing. you can still help me to get some organization that can help me achieve my dream. Though our plan is to kick start with LAGOS then ABUJA, ONICHA and PORTHACOUT for this year. This is my email address:dseun4real@yahoo.com or my mobile numbers+2348026468929,+2348132396391 thank you.
    LAND,ABUILDING,FANS,GENERATOR,AC SET,SECURITY,ACCOUNTANT,WORKERS,FRIDGE AND GAS COKER,FOOD STURFF:BAGS OF RICE,BAGS OF BEANS,TUBER OF YAM,GARRI,WATER DISPENCER,YAM FLOUR,PEPPER,TOMATOES,SANDINES,COW,RAM,TURKEY,CHICKEN E.T.C………….This are some of the things we would be needing for now thank you.

  488. bet888 Says:

    Having read this I thought it was rather informative.
    I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this short article together.
    I once again find myself spending way too much time
    both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!


Leave a Reply

*