Finding a Postdoc Position is a Difficult Journey but here are 15 Tips to Help You Along the Way.

My impression, from the anecdotes of others as well as my own experience, is that finding a postdoctoral position is a widely unknown and undiscussed process that one learns about via “trial by fire.” For example, Mitch wrote about the surprises he experienced during his interview last January.

Unlike applying for college or graduate school, there is no formal application process for obtaining a postdoc. From what I have been told it more closely resembles the job search process, but for further complication, many postdoc openings are not advertised and only become available when the right applicant inquires. In an effort to support future postdoctoral hopefuls, I am going to expand on Mitch’s prior post with insight and advice I acquired through trial and error and gleaned from the stories of others. It is a long list but hopefully some of this information will be helpful.

Get your foot in the door…
1. Begin your search one to two years before graduation. A few professors shared this insight with me after they learned I began my postdoc search only nine months before my own graduation (oops). It makes sense now when I think about it because potential advisors need time to allocate money, resources and a project for your estimated date of arrival.

2. Find four or five research groups you are interested in working with. I focused primarily on finding groups working in the flavor of research I am interested in. Other searchers may prioritize location. Another variable, more important than either, is whether the lab you are interested in will serve as a stepping stone for your long-term professional goals.

3. Write a cover letter to each professor. This letter should include a brief overview of the research you have conducted and why you are interested in their work. I recommend subtly incorporating the skills, tools, and ideas you would bring to their research. I would also mention a willingness to pursue external funding sources or to request recommendations for any fellowships they may know that you could apply for.

4. Ask your advisor to send a short email on your behalf. It is not unusual for a top research professor to get several postdoctoral applications each week. Regardless of how good your qualifications may be it can be difficult to differentiate your email from the others. If your advisor is willing, have them send a truncated recommendation email saying something like, “I have a spectacular graduate student that is interested in being a postdoc in your research group and you would be a fool to pass them up. They will be sending you their CV and cover letter shortly.” If the professors know each other it can be huge advantage in your favor and sometimes this email is all it takes to get an offer.

5. Send an email with cover letter and CV attached. Example email text: “I am a fifth year graduate student in the …. research group at the University of …. This email is to express my interest in joining your research group as a postdoc starting in Month 201x. Attached are a cover letter and curriculum vitae. Letters of recommendation are soon to follow. I am happy to provide any other information you may find helpful.”

6. Send a hard copy of the cover letter and CV. Even if your email gets ignored you can pretty much guarantee that a physical letter will at least be opened and your name will cross the professor’s mind at least one more time.

7. Wait for a reply. Hopefully you hear back from the professor with good or at least a neutral (not no) reply. In the best case scenario you get a job offer or an interview. If they do not extend an invitation for a campus visit, you can insist on paying for your own visit and offer to give a talk. This option of course depends on how badly you want the position, as well as the state of your bank account. My theory is that it would be much more difficult to say no after a person has demonstrated that they are highly interested and competent (assuming you demonstrate these qualities). If you do not hear back in several weeks you should send a follow up email asking for an update on the postdoctoral position.

You have planned a visit. Before you go…
8. Do your homework. Looking into the research group’s goals and methods should be a no-brainer. It is unlikely that you will get a pop quiz on their research. However, your general dialog with the adviser and group members will flow much better and you will leave a better impression. Nothing says “I have a scientific mind” like asking a really insightful question. If possible, think of a proposal or direction they could shift their research. They might not want to pursue your ideas but it does show that you have them.

9. Have a one hour talk prepared. Instinctively you might feel the need to include as much of your PhD work as you can cram into an hour but it is much more effective to present a small subset of your research with a coherent storyline. This talk should also be tailored in a similar manner as your cover letter as to clearly demonstrate skills/tools/ideas you can bring to their research.

During the visit…
10. Consider how to dress. This is a point where I respectfully disagree with Mitch. If you are someone that is comfortable or enjoys wearing a suit by all means look more professional. However, I am not willing to sacrifice my comfort for appearance. The more relaxed I am the better I will perform in both my presentation and one-on-one meetings. For my postdoc interviews (and defense) I wore a nice pair of jeans and a suite coat.

11. What to expect. Your visit will most likely be comprised of a lab tour, possibly a short campus tour, a meeting with the adviser/grad students/postdocs, lunch and a presentation (either to the group or the entire department). Not necessarily in that order. If there are in-house collaborators, a meeting with them can be expected but thanks to Mitch I now know that you might also be asked to meet with other professors in the department.

12. Be prepared for a long, energy consuming day. You will likely be putting in an 8-hour day of constant discussions. I have heard rumors that when veteran professors are interviewing a candidate they will set up a meeting in the morning and one at the end of the day. The reason they do this is to first catch you in the morning to see how awake and energetic you are, and then at the end of the day to see if you are the same way. It is a method of finding out who you really are. It is very difficult to keep up a facade for 8 hours. Also if you can keep up your energy that entire time you are probably going to get a lot of work done.

After your visit…
13. Send a follow-up email. A few days after the interview I sent a follow-up email thanking the professor and their group members for their time, reemphasized my interest in their research group and closed by asking for updates on the position. If I did not hear back within a month I sent a second email asking for an update.

14. Funding. Even if you have received an offer that includes full financial support it is still a good idea to apply for postdoc fellowships not only for the money but also the prestige that comes with receiving a fellowship. Most advisors are willing to help you write a proposal based on their work or an original proposal idea. Whether or not you get the fellowship you will still learn a lot about your future projects.

15. Making a decision. Believe it or not, this might be one of the more difficult parts of the process. If you only receive one offer out of several attempts it greatly simplifies your decision. However, if you get a few offers it may be more difficult. This is the time to ask some honest questions about your future advisor and group members. Will they help you find a job? Do they like the area? What is it like working their? Many of us also have to consider the two body problem. Can my significant other find a job there?

The final advice I will give is that the process is so individualized that you should consult everyone you can that has undergone their own postdoc adventure. If others have any more information to share, please do so.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

My Advice to First-Year Ken (Time Machine Availability Pending)

Having just successfully defended my dissertation and finding myself with spare time during a cross-country drive between Los Angeles to North Carolina, I have compiled a list of things that I did or, in retrospect, wish I had done at the beginning of graduate school. I hope that those who are just entering a program this fall will find it useful. One thing to keep in mind while reading this list is that I am primarily a synthetic chemist. Yet, I am optimistic that there is something useful to all chemists, no matter the flavor.

In no particular order:

1) Search through every nook and cranny of your lab. When you first start working you should look through every drawer/cabinet/fridge/corner in your group’s space just to get a feel for what is available to you. At some point you might need a unique item that you recall happening across during your initial search. Keep in mind that while group materials are often shared, some of the senior group members might not be happy if they find you going through “their stuff” so you might want to either ask them or do it at night when no one is around.

2) Have an extra set of clothing/shoes in desk. You never know when you will sacrifice an item of clothing on the alter of science (Ignore this point if you enjoy public nudity).

3) Use a numbering system for your files. Early in your graduate career you might be tempted to label your spectroscopic files (NMR, UV-Vis, IR, etc.) after the name of your molecules. However, unless you are going to list the full IUPAC name it will result in some acronym or abbreviation that could change over time. To avoid much frustration and ordeal while sorting through your first-year files as you write your dissertation it is much better just to name your files by notebook number or some systematic way that will not change over time.

4) Write down everything. I realize you are told this many times but you have no idea how difficult it is to recreate a procedure four years later with notes that are not up to par. If you are not motivated by the fear of your own personal frustration later on, do it for the next person that needs to recreate your results.

5) Always remain skeptical. It is very easy to convince yourself that there is a peak or signal or whatever when you want it to be there. Yet, no matter how much you want to have discovered a new phenomena or synthesized your final product, you have to double/triple check your results and use multiple measurements to be sure. If a result is to good to be true, it often is. There is nothing more devastating than to be “certain” of your results only to find out they are far from it.

6) Get a screw driver set. Although your research group may have public use tool, I strongly recommend keeping a personal set of both small and regular-sized screw drivers in your desk drawer. They will always be there and in good working condition when you need them (In consideration of point #1 – write your name on all personal items).

7) Buy Invest in a comfortable chair. Over the course of your graduate career (4-7 years) you will spend many hours in your chair, especially when writing up papers or your dissertation. Being physically sore due to a crappy chair does not help your mental well-being and thus can end up hindering your research.

8 ) Stagger your hours. No matter how close you are with your lab mates, make no mistake; you will be competing with them for lab space and equipment (rotovaps, spectroscopic machines, etc.). Although the idea of working from 6am to 4pm may not sound appealing, you can get a lot of work done when you have free reign over EVERYTHING.

9) Have a couple of 3 1/2” floppy disks in your desk. Working in a state of the art research facility does not always mean you are working with state of the art operating systems/software. In the event that you need to get data off of a machine without USB drives, running windows 98 it is handy to have your floppy disks readily available.

10) Screw up early and often and learn from it. You are going to make mistakes in lab. During your first year be prepared to fail. A lot. The key to success is to learn from your mistakes. As a senior group member I had no problem walking a first-year through a procedure or trouble shooting some issue, but if I had to do it three or four times I was less likely to help them in the future.

11) Pick and choose your battles. Although it is difficult to foresee what battles are important, especially when you are first starting your research career, the best advice I can offer is to ask yourself, “will this experiment support the narrative of my research/papers? Will it help me graduate?” For example, if you are not a synthetic chemist and only care about the properties of your final product it is not worth your time to optimize your reaction yields from 50 to 80%. If your product is valuable let someone else figure out an efficient way to make it. You should just worry about measuring pure product.

12) On your first day in lab figure out who the smartest member of your research group is and hit them with a lunch tray. Just kidding. Prison rules only apply 75% of the time in graduate school. But seriously, not every opinion from senior group members is equally valuable. Get a feel early on for who is able and willing to help you with your questions.

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Want to get out of jury duty? Become a chemist.

A few months ago I received a jury duty summons from Los Angeles County. I was unhappy that I’d be out of the lab for several days if selected, but excited to have my first personal look into our legal system.

For those of you who have not yet been summoned, I’ll share with you a general description of my experience. The first step is to wait. I sat in a room with a few hundred other people for five hours before I, along with 60 other people, were called to a courtroom to begin the selection process.

Inside the courtroom sat the potential jurors, the prosecution/defense, the suspect, judge, bailiff and court reporter. They observed while I and the other potential jurors swore to answer all questions truthfully. Twenty of us, (everyone is assigned and referred to by a number. I was ten) were called to the jury box. The case involved a driving under the influence (DUI) charge and one by one the jurors were required to answer a series of general questions (Do you know anyone in law enforcement? What is your occupation? Do you have any strong feelings about the charges? Etc.). When asked my occupation I responded that I was a graduate student in chemistry.

After the general questions both the prosecution and defense asked additional questions, some directed to particular individuals. The questions attempted to uncover the jurors preconceived notions about the suspect and crime. One question asked by the defense sparked my attention. The attorney asked, “Does anyone know how breathalyzer works?”

Although a simple concept that can be grasped by any general chemistry student, the most common portable breathalyzer is actually a very clever use of electrochemistry. Inside of the device is an electrochemical cell operating at a constant potential:

At the cathode, oxygen is reduced in the presents of water to produce hydroxide ions.

O₂ + 2H₂O + 4e^- –> 4OH^-

At the anode, the ethanol in your breath is oxidized to acetic acid.

CH₃CH₂OH + 4OH^- –> H₃CCOOH + 3H₂O + 4e^-

Because this is a well defined 4 electron process, the current produced can be used to determine the amount of ethanol in your breath.

In response to the defense attorney’s question, I raised my hand, prepared to explain the chemistry behind the device. Unexpectedly, the lawyer turned to me and, as if already aware of my answer, dismissively said, “I will get back to you later.”

After 10 minutes the defense lawyer returned to me and delivered the following two questions:

1)  “It is the responsibility of a juror to leave any expertise at the door and make their decisions based only on what is presented by witnesses called during the trial.  This also includes not discussing your external knowledge with fellow jurors. Can you, even if you know the testimony of one of the experts is wrong, make your decision based only on what is presented?”

My answer: Yes. (Internal monologue: I can but I would lose sleep at night knowing I allowed a potentially innocent person to be punished.)

2)  “While hearing a testimony that contains information you know to be false you might instinctively think “that is wrong and this is why.”  Can you stop yourself from having these thoughts?”

My answer: No. (Internal monologue: Is that even possible?)

Following a meeting between the judge, prosecution and defense, the first three jurors were dismissed. I was one of them, along with a man who could not speak English and a woman whose best friend had been killed by a drunk driver.

In retrospect, it appears that I was dismissed from the jury because I am a chemist/scientist.  Despite not being selected, my jury summons provided a thought provoking experience and left me with several questions. I will now pose these questions to you, my fellow members of the scientific community.

1) Could you convict someone of a crime knowing that it is based on incorrect testimony?

2) We have spent years training our brains to critically analyze everything we think and hear. Can you shut that off on request?

3) In a system where those who testify swear under oath to tell the truth, is it hypocritical to expect those making the decision to suppress what they know to be true?

4) Why wouldn’t you want additional expertise on a panel of individuals deciding the outcome of a trial? Aren’t they the most qualified and as a result most likely to make the correct decision?

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Chemical Spill or CHEMICAL SPILL!!

Some of you may have heard on ABC news about a “Chemical Spill” at the University of Southern California on 10/15/09.¹ Luckily, you get the inside story because the spill was in my research lab.

A post-doc in my research group was transporting a few chemicals in a plastic basket from one location to another.  The plastic was brittle due to gradual chemical exposure and cracked. Three bottles fell to the ground and broke. One contained lauroyl chloride, another an anthracene derivative (I don’t remember which one) and the third was a 100 mL bottle of tributyltin chloride. The first two are entirely inert and caused no concern.  The third chemical is an alkyl tin reagent which, in general, are known to be toxic.² Tributyl tin chloride has a high boiling point (170ºC) and a low vapor pressure compared to that of trimethyl tin chloride. To actually be affected by this chemical, you would probably have to lick the floor or rub it on your skin. However, it was a scenario where we decided it would be best to close the room and allow our on campus Hazmat team, composed of three guys and a truck, to clean it up.

Our lab safety officer soon learned, through USC Public Safety, that the Hazmat crew was unavailable due to a publicity event on the USC Health Sciences Campus. I am not exactly sure who was contacted next, but the response was big.  A building evacuation, two fire trucks, 10-15 firemen, several LAPD officers, and a Los Angeles county chemical spill response team later a news helicopter shows up. They were likely listening to the police radio and, once they arrived on the scene, started reporting the event on ABC news.

The chemical spill response team was no doubt baffled when they saw ~50 ml of clear liquid on the floor of our lab. This is the team called in when a chemical tanker flips over.

Eventually, the USC Hazmat team arrived and did the minor cleaning required from the beginning.

The image above is perhaps the best summation of how overblown the response was. It was used by ABC news to indicate a mass building evacuation.  The picture is actually of an on-campus engineering job fair that was happening a block away. Each white umbrella signifies a different visiting company.

Luckily, the media was distracted by a helium balloon, without which this overblown event may have been even further overblown.

Things I learned/re-learned from this event:

• Know what chemicals you are working with, how to clean them up and their toxicity.
• Find out who you need to call for both major and minor chemical spills.
• Don’t use dollar store plastic baskets for transporting chemicals (at least not long term).
• Don’t invite your Hazmat team to publicity events.

1) http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7067340

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1509475/

Subscribe to the comments for this post

Hello my name is Ken and I am a science junky.

Since this is my first post on chemistry-blog.com I want to introduce myself with an explanation of why I am a scientist and, more specifically, a chemist.

Like most children, I was born with an insatiable curiosity to understand the world around me. This curiosity was expressed in an unending string of “why” questions. I recognize now that when adults did not have an answer for me they were uncomfortable simply saying, “I don’t know.” I found there are two common ways to get around the discomfort of showing a child your lack of knowledge. The first is the straight forward blow off of “It just is.” This answer only fueled my inquisitive nature and the voice inside my head responded with “They don’t know, maybe I can figure it out.” The second response is far more nefarious: the argument “You can’t really know anything.” Although there is some validity to this statement in the strictest definition, a deep epistemological conversation is usually not the intended outcome. The statement is instead a dualistic assertion that every claim has equal validity.

Is every claim equally true, just because we say it is? No. Reality simply does not work that way.

Living creatures accept that the universe has a systematic set of rules. We accept this basic premise, not because we want to or choose to, but because we have to. If not, every action you perform could result in any possible outcome. How would you function if you believed that flipping a light switch might change the density of water? Despite their best efforts no one really thinks that way.

A basic understanding of the inner-workings of the universe could be roughly described as common sense (don’t touch fire, what goes up must come down, etc.), but the process is much more formal than that. It is scientific method:

1) That is weird.     (Observation)
2) I bet it’s because of …     (Hypothesis)
3) If I do … then … should happen     (Proposed experiment)
4a) I was right!     (Hypothesis supported.)
5a) Now how can make money off of …?     (Create a new hypothesis)
or
4b) Crap!     (Hypothesis falsified)
5b) I bet it’s because of …     (New hypothesis)

When I was a child there was nothing more enjoyable to me than looking at something and asking “how does that work?” I reveled in coming up with an explanation and then finding I was right. Even today, as a graduate student, the hours of experiments I conduct to test one simple hypothesis (the results of which sometimes ends up as a single sentence in a paper) are worth the effort for the elation I feel when the prediction is correct. I could be best described as “testable hypothesis junky.” My desire to get a fix is the reason I am a scientist. So, why chemistry?

After dabbling in several majors as an undergrad, I took organic chemistry. I fell in love with the atomic/molecular world. At the time I did not understand the draw of such a hated – even feared – academic pursuit (you have no doubt noticed the response when you tell people that you are a chemist). It is only now after years of research that I am beginning to understand the allure.

Of the hard sciences, chemistry is a unique field that allows us to understand the perceived world around us. Using our chemistry knowledge we can conceptualize why an egg yolk hardens when heated or why the Hope diamond is blue. Cell membranes, hand soap, and a layer of gasoline on water can all be associated in the mind of a chemist simply by understanding molecular properties. I started to make a list of more day to day things that are related to chemistry but I decided against it. After I wrote several lines, a photon emitted from the semiconducting material in a light emitting diode passed through the aligned molecules in the liquid crystal display of my computer, eventually hitting molecules in my eye causing a cis to trans isomerization setting off a cascade of sodium and potassium ion pumps which eventually resulted in the realization that the list was just too long.

I have come to understand the root of my passion and now it is my goal to share it with others. The key is finding a way to reignite the curiosity of everyone’s inner child. All it takes is a tidbit of chemistry that is useful and interesting to open a window for others and help them foster a new perspective and interest in our chemical world. I am a firm believer that everyone is interested in chemistry. They just don’t know it yet.

Subscribe to the comments for this post