Archive for the ‘Employment’ Category

An Interesting Position at Columbia

Tuesday, May 14th, 2013

I don’t know why I find myself writing so many posts about happenings at Columbia, but I do. And the trend continues, thanks to this ad I found on page 84 of the March 18th edition of Chemical & Engineering News:

 IMG_2756

The ad begins:

THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY seeks to appoint an Associate in Discipline beginning July 1, 2013, for our busy undergraduate laboratory programs. This is a full-time special instructional faculty position with multiyear renewals contingent on successful review…

An Associate in Discipline, you say? Great. I can think of a few chemists at Columbia who need to be disciplined (1 2)…

Mistakes from the Job Search: The Kitty Interview

Sunday, May 5th, 2013

Now that my job search is over, I can share all of the stupid things I did and instances where I completely fouled up. This story is, by far, the most mortifying of all my search-related experiences…

After reviewing the application packages they receive for faculty positions, most schools do a round of phone interviews before deciding on which candidates to invite for on-site interviews. Few things are more exciting in your job search than being asked to schedule a phone interview, because it often represents the first meaningful acknowledgment of receipt (and advancement) of your application package. Most of the applications you submit get sucked into a vacuum where you never hear that you’ve been rejected until six months later.

After submitting an application in early October to a school in the Pacific Northwest, I received a phone call three weeks later from the chairman of the department asking to schedule a Skype interview. Great. This was the first time I’d been asked to do a video interview, but I have a Skype account and a computer with a webcam, so everything was ready to go. While I rarely use Skype, I had used it to talk with a friend in China only two months prior.

On the day of the interview, I changed into a dress shirt in my office, logged on to Skype, and awaited the call. When I answered, my video stream popped up normally for a second, but quickly changed to the following:

paul_kitty_skype_interview

While I could see the search committee just fine, they saw me as a sad kitten. I know this because (i) I could see my feed in a small box on my screen, and (ii) the professors on the committee were looking at their screen and chuckling. What’s worse is that every time I talked, the kitten’s mouth would open and close. I was mortified.

I started frantically scrolling down all of the menus in Skype trying to remedy the situation. What the hell was happening? No one else ever uses my computer, and I was certain I hadn’t adjusted any of the settings in Skype. It had worked fine just two months earlier.

After trudging through the first three minutes of the interview while trying to fix the stream—a major distraction—the chairman suggested that I just kill the video and proceed on audio only. I guess it is hard to have a serious discussion about chemistry with a talking kitten?

I thought the rest of the interview went well—really well. I made a call sheet for every phoner that summarized the points I wanted to make, and putting that on the screen allowed me to refocus and get my head back into the game.

When the call was over, I resumed the effort of determining what had happened. A friend on Facebook pointed me to this blog post. It turns out that Skype is not to blame; it is some sort of default setting in the webcam software on Dell computers. Why you would set a kitten avatar as a default is beyond my comprehension, but there you go. It turns out that another user had the same experience just a couple of days later.

I sent a follow up e-mail to the chair thanking him for the interview and sharing what I had discovered about the problem.

Paul,

No worries! It’s an understandable problem and the interview worked well doing it audio only (we still had your Skype profile picture to look at, so it wasn’t actually all that different). It was nice talking to you.

XXXXXX

 

On Oct 30, 2012, at 3:50 PM, “Paul Bracher” <bracher-at-caltech/edu> wrote:

Hi XXXXXX,

I wanted to thank you and the rest of the committee for taking the time to chat earlier today. I had a great time, aside from the mortification associated with my bizarre video feed. It seems that I am not the first person to fall victim to Dell’s webcam software:

http://www.bitbybit.dk/carsten/blog/?p=269

A number of my friends in lab have died laughing, but you have my profound apologies. I would have preferred that you and the committee had been able to see the enthusiasm on my face during our discussion. I remain very excited about the position at —————!

All the best,
Paul “the Kitten” Bracher

The response was gracious, but the damage was done. I think what was especially damaging about the situation was that you have some guy who has put together a decent Web site, runs a blog, and stresses the importance of incorporating new technology into his teaching proposals, yet he can’t figure out how to use Skype properly. In hindsight, I should have done another test run, instead of thinking that my use of Skype two months prior was sufficient.

After radio silence for the next month, I assumed the worst. The stages of the search seem to progress pretty quickly once they’ve started, so when you’ve lost contact for several weeks, it’s usually a bad sign. My suspicions were confirmed in February:

Dear Paul,

It was a pleasure to talk to you a couple months ago. I write to inform you that ————— has offered the Assistant Professor in Organic Chemistry position to another candidate. The decision was very difficult and time consuming (which is why you’re only just hearing back from us), as you were in a field of outstanding candidates.

I would like to convey my appreciation for your interest in —————. Please accept my best wishes for the future development of your career.

Sincerely,

XXXXX
Chair, Search Committee

The cold sting of rejection. Oh well. Who knows what could have been were it not for the kitty interview?

Alternative Chem Careers: Parrot Trainer/Researcher

Wednesday, April 24th, 2013

I like listening to the audio of PBS television shows as background noise, because (i) I’m cheap, (ii) it’s free, and (iii) it keeps me in tip-top shape for pub quiz tournaments. I was listening to an old episode of NOVA ScienceNOW on the intelligence of animals, when a profile of Alex the Parrot piqued my interest. Alex was world-famous for his incredible—for a bird—ability to speak, recognize objects, and count.

Fast-Forward to 37:53

Alex died in 2007, so this profile was more about his trainer, Irene Pepperberg. Narrator Neil deGrasse Tyson’s sexy science voice really grabbed my attention when he summarized Pepperberg’s educational background:

Growing up in 1950′s Brooklyn, Irene initially set out to study chemistry, first at MIT, and then as a graduate student at Harvard. But in 1974, halfway through her Ph.D., a new television series changed everything.

[Cut to an ancient episode of NOVA about training apes to use sign language.]

With her Ph.D. in hand, Irene turned her back on chemistry and set out to begin a career in biology, at Purdue University. Her first stop: the pet store.

I love keeping track of people who’ve ditched chemistry and had fantastically successful “alternative” careers. Maggie Thatcher was a research chemist prior to becoming the first female Prime Minister of the UK. Joel Godard got a degree in chemistry at Emory and would later become the long-time announcer for Late Night with Conan O’Brien. Jerry Buss earned a Ph.D. in chemistry before he became a real estate mogul and owner of the Los Angeles Lakers. Cindy Crawford started out as a ChemE major before becoming a supermodel.

A closer inspection of Irene Pepperberg’s history reveals that she appears to have worked on boranes with Nobel laureate Bill Lipscomb at Harvard. It’s quite a jump from boranes to parrot training, but Pepperberg really made a splash and blazed new trails in the world of biology.

It’s always nice to have examples of wildly successful people who invested many years getting a Ph.D. in chemistry and later decided to leave the field. Such a decision takes a lot of courage, and I think many graduates feel needlessly ashamed of opting to leave the bench.

Food for Pessimists Regarding Careers in Academia

Sunday, April 14th, 2013

Here are some nice reads to get you depressed about a career in academia.

1) Last week, The Crimson published a wonderfully deep look into the process of getting tenure at Harvard.

“The ad hoc process is greatly shrouded in mystery; remarkably little is written about it,” says current Senior Vice Provost for Faculty Diversity and Development Judith D. Singer. She smirks wryly as she swigs coffee from her mug, as if this is something she’s explained a hundred times before.

“What the ad hoc process does is it takes a recommendation that has come up out of a department, been through a dean, and says, ‘Let’s look at this with a fresh set of eyes. Let’s look at the totality of the evidence and make a dispassionate decision about whether the recommendations that have come up are really in the best interest of the University,’” says Singer.

In addition to the dossiers and area experts, the committee brings in a set of witnesses from the candidate’s department, typically the department chair and the chair of the committee that did the promotion review, among others. As the witnesses arrive at half-hour intervals, they see the membership of the committee for the first time. Until that point, the identities of the panel—except, of course, those who are ex officio—are kept confidential to prevent advance solicitation.

and…

The cases are rarely cut and dry. Negative witnesses are often called in to dissent the promotion. “Even in a canonization there’s a devil’s advocate,” says Singer, “and that’s part of what the ad hoc process is designed to do: to raise all of the questions and say, ‘Are they of sufficient concern to not make a tenure appointment?’”

The ad hoc is the mostly anonymous end to Harvard’s tenure process—when the dozens of classes and published papers boil down to a single decision. Many tenured and tenure-track professors say the process is unfair, that it is too subjective, too anonymous, and too unpredictable. But fairness may be beside the point. Those familiar with the process say Harvard is not interested in promoting good junior faculty, but rather in making sure it has the very best.

Quite a few very successful chemists were formerly assistant professors of chemistry at Harvard (who left for a variety of reasons). Steve Benner is one of my favorites.

2) Earlier this month, Slate published an essay by a humanities graduate student about how going to grad school was a huge mistake for her.

Don’t do it. Just don’t. I deeply regret going to graduate school, but not, Ron Rosenbaum, because my doctorate ruined books and made me obnoxious. (Granted, maybe it did: My dissertation involved subjecting the work of Franz Kafka to first-order logic.) No, I now realize graduate school was a terrible idea because the full-time, tenure-track literature professorship is extinct. After four years of trying, I’ve finally gotten it through my thick head that I will not get a job—and if you go to graduate school, neither will you.

I know the situation is different for students in the sciences, but I think some of her experience is still applicable. Here’s a more charitable assessment of going to graduate school in the sciences from last year, also in Slate.

3) Finally, an oldie but goodie from 1999: “Don’t Become a Scientist!

Why am I (a tenured professor of physics) trying to discourage you from following a career path which was successful for me? Because times have changed (I received my Ph.D. in 1973, and tenure in 1976). American science no longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school in science it is in the expectation of spending your working life doing scientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve important and interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed, probably when it is too late to choose another career.

While I like Professor Katz’s piece, it should be noted that the man certainly has some strange opinions.

Job Map

Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013

At the start of the chem-job hunting season, my girlfriend and I got to talking about where in the country it’d be nice to find work. As the constraints grew increasingly complex, I noted it’d be easier to just draw a map. She obliged. Her color coding was denoted in the margin as: green = :) , yellow = :| , and red = :( .

Tara's Job Map

This exercise in employment cartography turned out to be quite interesting. Some of the color variation can be explained by the presence of relatives, though most of it is simply personal preference. For instance, after a stint as a TV news producer in Portland, she soured on the Pacific Northwest.

I was heartbroken that Cuba and Russia were off-limits, but it turned out that not too many jobs were listed in C&EN for either country. And while Rhode Island was colored red—due mainly to the presence of “a crazy ex”—I still applied for a job there. Fortunately, I didn’t even get an interview. I’m sure this failure was assisted by my having used the blog to rail vehemently against ethical lapses by the former advisors of two organic professors at the school.

Anyway, all’s well that ends well. We are headed towards solid-yellow territory, which is a win in my book. From what I’ve seen, there are plenty of cultural activities, sporting events, and good food to be had in Saint Louis. It should be nice to have more space to live and the luxury of a yard.

It’s going to be grand!

Academic Movement and Hires, 2012-2013

Tuesday, 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)
Juila Chan (LSU to UT-Dallas, no Web yet but confirmed by trusted source)
Brian Shoichet (UCSF to Toronto)
Chulsung Bae (UNLV to RPI)
Scott Snyder (Columbia to Scripps Florida, no Web confirmation yet)

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, reliable report in comments, awaiting Web confirmation)
Jason Keith (Colgate)
Johanna Blacquiere (Western Ontario)
Emily McLaurin (Kansas State)
Lei Fang (Texas A&M)
Michael Clift (Kansas)
Fernando Uribe-Romo (Central Florida, awaiting Web confirmation)
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, unconfirmed report in comments, awaiting Web confirmation)
Maciej Walczak (Colorado)
Ryan Hili (Georgia, confirmed, no Web site yet)
Christian Bleiholder (Florida State)
Eugene DePrince (Florida State)
Rylan Lundgren (Alberta, no Web confirmation yet)
Zachariah Heiden (Washington State)
Stefano Sacanna (NYU)
Daniel Turner (NYU)
Aaron Van Dyke (Fairfield, confirmed, no Web site yet)
Skye Fortier (UTEP)
Shane Ardo (UC – Irvine)
Maren Buck (Smith)
Yujie Sun (Utah State)
Tim Wencewicz (Wash U., anonymous report in comments)
Nicholas McGrath (Wisconsin – La Crosse, anonymous report in comments)
Josh Vura-Weis (Illinois, awaiting Web confirmation)
Kenneth Hanson (Florida State)
Sean Roberts (UT – Austin)
Emily Que (UT – Austin)
Abhishek Chatterjee (Boston College)
Charles Mace (Tufts, personal communication, no Web confirmation yet)
Heather Kulik (MIT, ChemE)
Luis Velarde (SUNY – Buffalo)
G. Ekin Atilla-Gokcumen (SUNY – Buffalo)
Bo Li (UNC)
Hannah Shafaat (Ohio State, a reliable report to ChemBark)
Rebecca Taurog (Williams)

 

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