After the submission deadline, most interview offers are extended sometime between October and February. They begin with a phone call or email from a department or search committee chair and conclude with a scheduled phone interview or in-person interview. The waiting period—between the submission deadline and receiving an interview—can be daunting. Every single unknown number on my cell phone screen prompted sudden excitement and then, most of the time, disappointment.  I’ve never hated telemarketers more.

Eventually, I did receive my first call–a thrilling experience–and by the end of my job search I had one phone interview and several on-site interviews. Below I describe my experience and share my (and others) advice on the interview process.

Phone interviews

Not every University holds phone interviews, but those that do use it as a preliminary screening method. It’s a strategy for interviewing a greater number of candidates and testing “fit” before extending offers for an on-campus interview. Think of it as a asking someone out on a quick coffee date before committing to a full evening together. An on-campus interview is a lot of time/effort/money to commit to someone and it’s reasonable to take measures to test “fit” prior to jumping in.

The good news for job candidates offered a phone interview is that, by reaching this stage, they can be assured that the search committee has looked through his or her application and feel confident about the viability of their research proposals. The interview stage—whether by phone or on-campus—is more about assessing a candidate’s speaking skills, ability to run a research program, and departmental “fit.” Between my experience with phone interviews and the anecdotes I’ve heard from others, here’s a short list of example phone interview questions:

• Who would be your primary funding sources?
• What major pieces of equipment will you need and how much do they cost?
• Do you have a project that you would bring with you from your time as a post doc?
• Where do you see your research program in 5 years? 10 years?
• Who from our department/university might you be interested in collaborating with?
• When would you be available to begin work?
• Are there any factors that we have not spoken about that would be important in your decision to come to X if we were to make an offer?
• How do you feel about teaching general chemistry?
• Do you have any questions for us?

The last question was especially important. Nothing says, “I’ve done my homework on your university/department” like asking one or two insightful questions. For example, I’d usually prepare a question about the department’s facilities, asking something like: “The department has a solar cell testing station. Would I be able to add electrochemical impedance capabilities to the system?” It helped show my seriousness about the job and genuine interest in the department while also suggesting something I could contribute.

It’s a good idea to start thinking about possible answers for interview questions as well as questions to ask the committee early. While most phone interviews are scheduled ahead of time, I’ve heard stories of people surprised with an on-the-spot phone interview.

On-site interviews

If the phone interview ends favorably then—congratulations—the next step is an on-site interview. On-site interviews are intensive. To help me organize the story of my on-site interview experiences, I’ll break the process down into five sections: a rough timeline, food, meetings with faculty, meetings with students, and post-interview follow-up.

A Rough Timeline

Many people tried to prepare me for the on-campus interview, describing it as an incredibly exhausting experience, especially the first time. They were 100% right but simply saying this wasn’t nearly enough to prepare me for what it was really like. The faculty job interview is a constant—dare I say relentless?—two and a half day series of meetings, conversations, and presentations. In retrospect, the only thing that might have helped me prepare would have been traveling back to my undergraduate university and ask them to schedule a marathon, one-day visit starting at 8:00 am and concluding after dinner at 8:00pm.

One thing that did help was that, about a week before I left for the interview, I received a schedule of events. Here’s an outline of the four-day schedule from start to finish:

Day 1: My flight arrived by mid-to-late afternoon. Sometimes a faculty member was there to pick me up at the airport. Other times I arranged my own taxi. Either way, I’d reach my hotel with an hour or so to check in and prepare for dinner with 2-3 faculty.

Day 2: The day began with breakfast or coffee with another faculty member who then brought me to campus. Most of the day (9:00-5:00) included non-stop, 30-minute meetings with faculty. There was a lunch “break” with 2-3 faculty or a group of students. Day 2 was also when the research talk was scheduled, during which I presented on the research I conducted as a graduate student and/or postdoc. That evening I had dinner with 2-3 faculty as well.

Day 3: The third day was similar. The 30-minute meetings with faculty continued and I had lunch with a new group of students or faculty. The most faculty meetings I had in one day was 11 (between 8:30 and 5:30). Also, the third day usually included a tour of the facilities (NMR, mass-spec, spectroscopy, etc.), my proposal presentation (i.e. chalk talk), and concluded with a meeting with the department chair (around 4:00 or 5:00) followed by dinner with 2-3 faculty.

Day 4: I woke up in time to take a cab to the airport, flew home, recovered, and waited.

During the entire trip I always kept reminding myself that it was a non-stop interview. From the moment I was picked up at the airport to the end of the dinner on the third night, regardless of where I was, who I was talking to, or what I was eating, I was being observed and evaluated. The entire process is designed for the department members to assess who a candidate is as a person, researcher, teacher, mentor, coworker, friend, and collaborator (and vice versa).

Quick tip 1: I always kept a water bottle in my bag throughout the entire trip. It was easy to take a few sips while walking between meetings. The last thing I wanted was to deal with dehydration in addition to everything else.

Quick tip 2: Sometimes, if I hadn’t yet received the schedule 3-4 days before the interview, I sent a friendly email to my host asking about it.

Food

Since I was the focus of attention, even during lunch, I often ended up speaking during a large portion of the meal. I made sure to avoid ording finger food because I sometimes talk with my hands and didn’t want surprise projectiles. I also tried to order something light so I didn’t feel weighed down and sleepy afterwards.

Meetings with Faculty

I have no general formula to share for the 30-minute faculty meetings. Sometimes it was just me talking about my current or proposed research. Other times it was the professor explaining his or her research to me. The best meetings I had (on my end) were more of a casual conversation about life and research.

Sometimes faculty would give me a quick tour of their lab space and equipment during these one-on-one meetings. These tours were a fun opportunity for them show me pieces of equipment they would allow me access to if hired.

The interaction dynamic during the 30-minute meetings was very unique and not something I had experienced before. The uniqueness of it comes from the short amount of time, the balance between you selling yourself, the faculty selling the department/university/town, and the constant tension of probing each other with questions to learn what each other is really like.

The only thing that was consistent in every 30-minute meeting (as well as lunch) was the question, “Do you have any questions for me/us?” I was asked this at least 20 times. I tried to have a few standard questions I asked to everyone in an effort to gather multiple perspectives. If following this strategy, be sure to keep track of who you’ve already asked so they don’t receive a double dose of the same question. As the end of the third day neared I would sometimes politely explain that many of my questions had already been answered before redirecting the conversation to avoid any uncomfortable moments of silence.

My personal favorite variation on “do you have any questions?” was “What would your significant other want you to ask?” It was a really fun question because it really got me thinking. Not only about what my wife would want to know about the city but also about other things from my potential job that will directly affect her life. It’s unfortunate that that question was asked during my last interview. After sharing the question with my wife she quickly came up with additional questions I could have posed.

Interviewers cannot legally ask questions about a candidates’ personal life like “are you married?” or “do you have children?” but they will still try to probe your personal life (hobbies, what do you do for fun, etc.). This line of questioning didn’t seem like a malicious act. It was just another way to get to know the candidate and identify key features or selling points about the university and local town. I don’t know if it was a good or a bad thing, but I decided to be very open about the fact I’m married, my wife’s occupation, and our lack of children. For me it was easier to be up-front rather than spending effort avoiding topics. Perhaps others can share insight in the comments section about how to gracefully re-direct conversations when topics considered private come up during interviews.

Lunch with Students

I was told by a few younger faculty that student lunches “were more brutal because the students were much less inhibited in their questions than professors.” Despite this ominous warning, the  students I had lunch with were great and asked interesting questions about my approach to research, teaching, and mentoring. The student lunch was, of course, still a part of the interview. The student’s advisors, formally or informally, asked them about their opinions on the candidates. For one interview I was told up front that students had formal input on hiring decisions. The ~15 students that I had lunch with were asked to fill out a questionnaire with questions like:

• Could you see yourself working for this person?
• Were they clear in expressing themselves?
• How do you think they would be as a teacher?
• Any other comments on the candidate?

Post Interview Follow-Up

Finally, as with any job interview, I made sure to send a follow-up email to my host, the chair of the search committee, and/or the chair of the chemistry department. The message to both my host and chair were pretty straightforward: “Thank you for the invitation…I enjoyed the visit…I look forward to hearing the department’s decision.”

The email I sent to the chair of the hiring committee was slightly different. After all the interviews are over, the committee and/or department members get together and compare the candidates. In an effort to clearly define myself, I sent the chair a follow-up email reiterating my defining features as a candidate. Here is an example:

Dear _____,

I really enjoyed meeting you, the other faculty and the students in the U of Y chemistry department this week. I also appreciated the opportunity to interview for the chemistry faculty position. [My host] was helpful throughout the entire process, especially with…

In case it’s helpful, I wanted to recap two of the points we briefly discussed during our meetings and my proposal talk:

• Having spoken with many members of the chemistry department, I am especially excited by the possibility of contributing my proposed solar cell research and photophysical measurements to the U of Y’s research agenda.
• If given the chance to serve as a professor in your department, I would be particularly interested in teaching inorganic chemistry (200, 201, 202). I would also be comfortable teaching General Chemistry (100, 101). Long-term, I would like to introduce a photophysics/photochemistry class.

Please let me know if there is any additional information you’d like me to share. I look forward to hearing the department’s decision.

Thanks again,

Ken

And so concludes my post about the interview process. In my next blog I will delve into preparing and presenting the research and proposal talks, as well as the very last meeting with the chemistry department chair.

It’s a simple idea. Have 100 plus T-shirts printed in various colours, each with one of the chemical elements on the front. Distribute them to chemists around the world, who get a photo of themselves wearing it, send it to me and I compile the Periodic Table of T Shirts. Advertise the project via Twitter, have the chemists of the world tweet and retweet about it, and the orders would flood in. Another great idea of mine which I would mull over for a few days, perhaps tell a few friends about, do nothing and the opportunity is lost. Except this time, I actually gave it a go and it‘s been a really enlightening experience. Here’s how it happened.

I happen to have three students in my house whose names are also the symbols of chemical elements. I thought it would be fun to get one of them a T-shirt with his name on in the style of a periodic table entry as he had been particularly helpful to others in the house. My students are quite used to my chemistry geekiness so they would not have found this particularly odd. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find anywhere that sold them, despite enquiring to the #RealTimeChem community on Twitter. How difficult would it be to design a T shirt and get it printed by one of the many online printers? Far too easy! How difficult would it be to organise T shirts for the rest of the chemistry geeks out there and arrange them into a periodic table of chemistry geeks wearing T-shirts of their favourite element? As it turns out, not too difficult either!

It was going to be straightforward to publicise the project via Twitter with hopefully a few favourable retweets from the likes of @realtimechem, but I was still missing a repository for the ordering information and a space to keep track of who had claimed which element. I needed a website and a blog. How hard could that be? You’ve guessed it- not very difficult at all. I was ready with the website within 24 hours of conception of the original idea. All I needed now was Photoshop and I would be in business. With Photoshop installed on my PC in minutes, courtesy of our fantastic IT department, I set about designing the logos for the shirts. Not so easy! I had never used Photoshop before and hadn’t realised what a huge array of options there would be. However, the great thing about the web is that you are never more than a couple of clicks away from a helpful website and an instructional video. Working with layers: easy! My first logo was ready within a couple of hours and my first batch of T-shirts to test out the idea was ordered a short while later.

The difficulty came with the colour scheme. As a teacher, I know that synthesis is at the apex of the pyramid in Bloom’s taxonomy. All I was doing was creating a few T shirts in different colours to make a periodic table. Mendeleev and others did the hard bit surely? I learned more about the periodic table that day than I had learnt in a long time as a chemistry student and teacher (Steve Wheeler’s post on Learning by Making also exemplifies the same idea ). Should I make the logos different colours for solids, liquids and gases? No, that would be testing my resolve too far if orders did start flooding in. However, choosing the colours for the different groups couldn’t be too tricky surely. Transition metals were going to be emerald green, but what about Zinc, Cadmium and Mercury? The other metals would be dark green, but where should I draw the line and should I have a different colour for the metalloids? I had an order for a Carbon shirt from @stuartcantrill who had seen one of the early retweets from @realtimechem. He suggested an earthy shade and I looked at the palette on the supplier website. Paprika looked like terracotta on the website, but three days later when my Silicon shirt arrived, paprika looked more like salmon pink (sorry Stuart and anyone else that orders one of the non-metals). I’m still not sure whether Lanthanum and Actinium should be the same colour as the transition metals or the lanthanides and actinides respectively but as this is a collaborative project I’m sure someone will advise me!  In the end the completed project will look like the table below, assuming everyone follows the instructions and orders the right colour.

There is a huge amount of interest at my school, but part of me wants these shirts to go to real chemists. Surely there should be someone currently working with each of the elements or an affection for one from some past association. Of course, I chose mine because it’s a shortened form of my name and it’s my project and my rules! My student is also very happy with his shirt and that is great because that’s where the idea started. But I’ve certainly learned a huge amount already, and I hope that by the time the periodic table is complete with chemistry folk sporting shirts of their favourite element, I might have learnt even more.

If you want to appear in the Periodic Table of T Shirts, choose one of the elements for yourself, contact me via Twitter (@cyclinscience) or via my blog and then order it online following the instructions provided. Don’t be put off by Mark Lorch’s suggestion that we can then each contribute to a montage of the Lehrer Periodic Table song. Now that really would be a displacement activity too far for me. Over to you Mark, I’ve got lessons to plan!

]]> http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2013/05/12/guest-post-the-periodic-table-of-t-shirts/feed/ 0 http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2013/05/11/get-a-job-ken-part-5-submitting-and-waiting/ http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2013/05/11/get-a-job-ken-part-5-submitting-and-waiting/#comments Sat, 11 May 2013 18:49:17 +0000 Kenneth Hanson http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=8744 In this blog post—the fifth in my eight-part “Get a job, Ken!” series—I share my experience submitting job application materials. This includes the research proposal (Part 3) and other materials like a cover letter, CV, and letters of recommendation (Part 4).

Job opening notifications for chemistry faculty positions began appearing in July and August. C&E News, indeed.com (search ‘chemistry professor’), Science magazine, and Inside Higher Education were my favorite places to watch for advertisements. I also regularly checked the chemistry department websites of the universities I was especially interested in.  Many chemistry departments will advertise openings directly on their home page.

Most, if not all, job opening advertisements say something like:

The Department of Chemistry at X University invites applications for a tenure-track faculty position in Y Chemistry. Candidates must have a Ph.D. in one of the chemical sciences and a demonstrated ability or potential for a recognized program of excellence in both teaching and research in Y chemistry.

The ‘Y’ (inorganic, organic, physical, etc.) in the advertisement usually indicates the hole a department is looking to fill in their teaching schedule or research agenda. Other Universities post open calls for all chemistry disciplines because they’re looking to hire the best of the best and don’t necessarily have to hire someone based on need.

One very important thing I was told was not to pigeonhole myself into one flavor of chemistry. So I looked for and applied to any position that used key words relevant to my area of research (like inorganic, energy, and materials). Some job posts, like energy-related organic or bioinorganic chemistry, were slightly outside of my domain of expertise but I applied anyway. I decided to let the search committees decide if I fit into their department’s needs. I rationalized that spending 20 minutes on a personalized teaching statement and cover letter for each almost-but-not-quite-aligned job opening was worth the time considering the potential return on investment.

The Aspiring Professors Support Group was also really helpful in the search for job openings. We created a shared Google Document Spreadsheet and when someone found a new advertisement he or she added it to the growing list. In addition to the university’s name, we noted its U.S. News rank, discipline of interest, requirements, deadline, and a link to the job description. Sometimes members of the group also added inside information, such as the flavor of research a department’s open call might actually be searching for or if a senior hire has already been identified for the position. Here is an excerpt from our spreadsheet:

Submission

The actual submission process was surprisingly painful because it varied from one institution to the next. Ultimately, the submission methods fell within four varieties:

• Email
• Department-based websites
• University-standard employment websites
• Third party websites

Email submissions were relatively convenient and less time consuming than the others. Email submission guidelines were typically noted in the job post and included a list of requested materials and the email address to send them to. Some asked that the materials be sent as individual attachments or compiled in one master pdf (with a specific order). Reference letters were also sent to the same email address but directly from the recommender (upon the request from the applicant).

Submissions through departmental and university websites were similar. Both required me to first type in personal information (name, address, undergrad/grad institutions, names of references, etc.) before uploading my application materials. These submission systems usually sent an email to my references with instructions for submitting their letters.

Six or seven of the positions I applied to employed a third party website, like academicjobsonline.org, to manage their submission process. These websites were convenient because I could upload a my CV and proposal as well as individualized documents (cover letters, teaching statements, etc.) for each opening. I could also simply list my references’ contact information (name, email, university, etc.) and the service would send out an automated email to request letters. My references could then upload a generic letter for all openings or a tailored letter for each university.

Regardless of the submission format, I was sure to always follow two rules. First, before submitting, I created a folder for each university to hold a stand-alone copy of each application component. I then checked and rechecked the contents to make sure they were correct. Some of the submission sites wouldn’t let me return and view the documents after uploading, so I was sure to add a lot of structure and rechecks into the material management process.

Second, I submitted as early as possible. This allowed: 1) extra time for committee members to look at my application (chances are they spend more time on early applications then those submitted en-masse at the deadline), 2) extra time for references to submit recommendation letters, and 3) extra time for me to double-check with each department to make sure they received all materials before the deadline. Most applications are considered incomplete until everything is submitted—recommendation letters included—and “will not receive full consideration until they are complete.”

Letters of Recommendation

I sent my references an excel spreadsheet (shown below) listing the universities I applied to, application deadlines, reference letter submission method (email vs. website), and whether or not their letter had been received and confirmed. Showing a reference where he or she was falling behind in comparison to others seemed to help prod them into action.

Waiting

After everything is submitted, the waiting starts. This is simultaneously a thrilling and difficult thing to do. On the best days I was overwhelmingly optimistic and my imagination ran wild creating long lists of all the universities that would offer me interviews. The worst days were depressing for me and my significant other as we struggled with the uncertainty about our future. Without knowing anything about where I might receive an interview (or even if I would receive any interviews at all) we were in holding-pattern purgatory where we couldn’t really plan for our future and just had to hope for the best.

One piece of advice I received was to not wait passively. I started to prepare my presentations and budget proposals right after submission. If I received a phone call offering an interview I’d only have a few weeks to prepare. I wanted to have my presentations done so that I could spend those few weeks researching the university and department.

Unfortunately, there are only two formal methods for learning whether or not I was in the running for a job interview. I would receive a call offering an interview or a rejection letter. Thankfully, there is an alternative method: I watched seminar schedules on departmental websites. Sometimes chemistry departments openly list seminar speakers as “faculty candidates.” Others will name speakers as Dr. instead of Prof. and a quick google search will reveal if the speaker is a post doc. One shortcoming to this method is that many chemistry seminar calendars either are not kept up-to-date or don’t include speaker’s names. In these instances I was left relying on formal announcements or snippets of information from people I knew.

Monitoring seminar schedules also showed me who I was competing with, both for interviews and in the job search in general. It is common for the same group of 4 or 5 individuals to interview at a dozen or so top tier schools (I was not one of these people).

In the next post I’ll describe my own interview experiences.

There isn’t a standard, one-size-fits-all set of application materials for all faculty job openings, but the majority ask for a cover letter, curriculum vitae (CV) and three letters of recommendation. A few universities also asked for additional items like a teaching statement, a diversity statement, copies of graduate school transcripts, and/or 4-5 publications.

Cover letter

I personalized the cover letter to each university. Yet, for my own sanity, I reused the same basic cover letter structure:

Paragraph one: I included a sentence that stated my general area of research. This is important, especially for general call job posts. When search committee chairs or their assistants start organizing applications one of their first goals is to identify the correct person to review it. They—and especially the candidate—want the proposals matched with a reviewer from a similar research domain. Including a sentence that clearly defines your area of research makes the alignment process easier and avoids, for example, having a biochemist assess an inorganic proposal or vice versa.

In the first paragraph I also made sure to note any faculty or consortia at the institution whose research aligned with mine in ways that could lead to possible collaborations. I included this to demonstrate how I could fit into the departments’ research theme and to hopefully get my proposals into the right hands.

Below is the cover letter I submitted to FSU.

CV

CVs vary greatly from one person to the next. I don’t know what the ‘right’ CV format is, but in case it’s helpful I am sharing, a copy of the CV (pdf) I submitted with all of my job application packages.

Letters of Recommendation

To help give my references time to prepare a recommendation letter, I emailed them a few months in advance (July and August). Then, a few weeks before the deadline, I sent a friendly reminder.

Other Requested Application Materials

Teaching Statement

Half of the openings I applied to asked for a Teaching Statement or, as some describe it, a Statement of Teaching Philosophy. But, if we are going to be perfectly honest, teaching statements are much more important when applying to primarily undergraduate institutions. Some of the faculty that I met with during interviews said they never saw my teaching statement or new I had submitted one. Regardless, in my teaching statement I mentioned my past experiences and the philosophies that shape my teaching style. While R1 institutions are more interested in research agendas, they are also looking to hire someone to fill any departmental teaching gaps. Acknowledging this, I explicitly listed classes I could teach. That way it is easier for the search committee to see how well I fit their needs. For example, I wrote:

Envisioning myself as a future chemistry professor, there are a number of courses that–given the opportunity–I would be very comfortable teaching. These courses include General Chemistry (105a/b, 115a/b), Inorganic Chemistry (453, 515) and Chemical Nanotechnology (455).

The teaching statement is also an opportunity to share a little bit about who you are as a person. The search committee is not just hiring a scientist and teacher, they’re also looking for a colleague and possible friend.

Diversity Statement

A diversity statement was only requested by University of California schools and served as an opportunity to express my awareness of and intention to help address the disproportionate involvement of female, African American, Hispanic, and Native American students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The diversity statement was the space to describe my current efforts to close this gap and how I plan to continue these efforts if hired.

While a diversity statement is currently only requested by University of California institutions, I would not be surprised if this request soon expands further. Increasing representation in STEM fields is a pressing issue. If these inequities are not addressed there will be a serious impact on the number of people prepared to enter STEM fields, especially as the demographics of the United States change. Recognizing this, the NSF has also increased the rigor necessary in the ‘broader impacts’ component of their proposals. It’s no longer acceptable to simply say “I’m going to go to a high school and give a talk” or “I am going to create a new graduate class.” Plans for expanding STEM representation are now expected to be more thought out and impactful. This is especially the case for career awards.

Rough Budget Proposal

One job application asked us to submit a rough budget proposal. This was a unique request and I am guessing the department had a limited budget and probably couldn’t support a $500,000 piece of equipment. This request, while unusual, seemed completely reasonable since departments want to optimize their time/money and only invite interviewees whose research they could support. This early request proved to be a convenience later since I had a rough budget proposal prepared before going into the interviews.

In my next post I’ll talk about the actual application submission process.

Strong proposals contain a competitive research idea (as discussed in my previous post), clearly communicate the idea, and concisely propose a plan to pursue it. The plan being the materials, measurements, expected results, and potential complications you may run into while attempting to turn the never-before-implemented idea into something real. Finally, strong proposals sell the idea by explaining why it’s unique, scientifically significant, and attractive to funding agencies.

A large majority of job openings do not specify a page limit for the proposal component, but I followed the advice of several friends and Professors to keep it at or under 10 pages. In these ten pages I included a cover page, three proposals (at three pages each), and one page of references. Below I break down each of these sections in greater detail.

The Cover Page

The search committee members will be bombarded with hundreds of applications. They simply will not have time to read through a three, let alone ten, page proposals from every applicant. I’ve heard from a few professors that they do not look at CVs or recommendation letters until the candidate list is whittled down based on the first page of the proposal alone. The cover page may be the deciding factor between making it through the first round or being cut. This is why it’s very important to spend a lot of time making a clear and compelling cover page.

The general format I used for my cover page can be seen in the image below. Forgive me for not sharing my actual proposal cover page. I haven’t had the opportunity to pursue the ideas yet.

As shown in the image, my cover page included:

1) My name and contact information at the top of the page.

2) A Research Overview, explaining my flavor of research and what I’ll be known for in five years if given the chance to pursue my proposals.

3) A subsection for each proposal that included:

• A title
• Page numbers
• A brief summary, which was structured similar to an abstract. It introduced a problem to be solved, how I intend to solve it, and the potential implications.
• A pretty image depicting the research idea.

The images accompanying each proposal might be the most important part of the cover page. They should be descriptive, aesthetically pleasing, and eye catching. The goal is to get the search committee curious enough about the ideas so they will look through the proposals and other application materials.

The Proposals

Each proposal should be three pages or less. Since the faculty search committee may include a broad range of chemists, you should try to limit the use of jargon and not assume too much prior knowledge about your research area. Compressing this information into three pages or less sounds like a monumental task and, to be perfectly honest, it is. It will take a lot of time and effort to put a short but solid proposal together. In an effort to help, below is a generic form of my proposal format.

As shown in the image, each of my proposals were organized into the following three sections:

1) Background and Significance

• Introduce a problem that needs to be solved.
• Describe how others are trying to solve it.
• Describe how I am going to try to solve it.
• Discuss how my method is better.

In this section, I included one bold sentence that clearly summarized the nature of my proposal and an italicized sentence outlining a few specific goals.

2) Plan of Work

• Explain the logistics of how you’ll pursue your idea (i.e. the materials, measurements, expected results, and potential complications).

3) Impact and Funding

• Remark on the potential implications of the proposed work.
• List a few potential funding agencies.

When mentioning funding agencies be very explicit. Include the agencies (NSF, NIF, DOE, ARO, etc.) as well as the divisions and sub-divisions within the agencies. An easy way to find possible funding agencies is to look at the acknowledgements section of the papers cited in your proposal. Chances are you will be applying to the same funding opportunities.

Example: “The importance of solar energy conversion research in our current economic and political climate leads me to believe my research program will appeal to both students and funding agencies like the National Science Foundation (CHE/MSN, DMR/SSMC) and Department of Energy (BES/MSE, CSGB).”

Citations

 I made sure to fit all of my citations on one final page to keep the total page count at 10. As far as citation format, I went with ACS standard formatting but others might work just as well.

 Other Formatting Notes

Although some people choose a one-column format, I decided to go with two columns because it is more analogous to many journal articles and, for me, feels easier to digest. I also made sure to include at least one pretty picture per page. It breaks up the wall of text.

Proofreading

I started drafting my proposals early (June or July) so I had time to play around with and re-write the text many times. Maybe more importantly, the time also allowed others to proofread what I’d written. Our aspiring professor support group (described in “Get a job, Ken!” Part 2) was particularly useful for proofreading.  We set up an editing rotation: I shared each of my proposals with three different people for feedback. I also read nine proposals from six different people.

After the aspiring professor support group’s initial screening and revisions, I also asked for comments/suggestions from several professors who had either been on a hiring committee before or just went through the job application process. This included my previous advisors and several Profs. at UNC. They were a big help because they let me know what they found compelling and memorable as well as where I could improve. Finally, I turned outside of the chemistry world to people like my wife to proofread for language and spelling errors.

In the next blog post I’ll share a similar breakdown for the other application materials.

]]> http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2013/05/04/get-a-job-ken-part-3-proposal-format/feed/ 2 http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2013/05/02/polymers-from-elemental-sulfur/ http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2013/05/02/polymers-from-elemental-sulfur/#comments Thu, 02 May 2013 12:25:10 +0000 Kenneth Hanson http://www.chemistry-blog.com/?p=8673 This post is contributed by John Spevacek, an industrial polymer chemist and the author of the blog “It’s the Rheo Thing”

While organic chemists are familiar with the elements, very seldom do we ever make use of them as a reactant. Sure, we add elemental magnesium to Grignard reactions and we can add halogens/hydrogen across double bonds, but for the most part, the pure elements are oxidized or reduced or ionized or otherwise modified before they take part in our reactions.

The situation is even that much clearer for my field of polymer chemistry. Pure elements of any sort are just not used at all. We certainly don’t use elemental carbon and hydrogen to make polyolefins, and silicon wafers are useless for making silicone polymers. In short, the refined elements have no place in polymer chemistry.

Until now.

A recent paper in Nature Chemistry (pay-per-view/subscription) showed that elemental sulfur can be directly co-polymerized with an organic molecule. What was more surprising yet was that the polymerization occurred without the use of solvents or even initiators.

From my perspective as a polymer chemist, the uses of sulfur are limited and have historically fallen into three categories. First are the polymers that have the sulfur in the backbone, such as polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyethersulfone (PES), and all the countless thiol-ene polymers. Another class are the polymers where the sulfur is peripheral to the backbone, usually as a sulfonate group such as in polystyrene sulfate. And lastly, there are the elastomeric materials where sulfur compounds have been used to vulcanize (crosslink) the polymer chains.

What all three of these sulfur-containing polymers have in common, however, is that none of them are prepared from elemental sulfur. They all require either a reduced or an oxidized form of sulfur in order to form the polymers.

As implied above, this new reaction is very simple. The researchers merely melted the sulfur and added 1,3-diisopropenyl benzene (DIB) at ratios from 90/10 to 50/50 w/w. The S₈ rings of sulfur opened up and copolymerized with the vinyl groups.

The reaction mechanism is not explicitly detailed, but I imagine it to be similar to what occurs in thiol-ene polymerizations. Since the organic comonomer is difunctional, the resulting product is crosslinked, not through the sulfur atoms, but instead through the organic monomer. The authors (with tongue-in-cheek) call this “inverse vulcanization”. However, despite the existence of this crosslinking, the polymer still flows as a thermoplastic. (Evidently the numerous sulfide bonds are breaking and reforming under the shear). This is fortunate as it allows the plastic to easily be shaped into a final product using conventional equipment.

While this is the only polymerization reaction I know of using a pure element, this discover by itself is interesting although somewhat limited. Working with molten sulfur imposes two big restraints on the choice of comonomers – that they first be soluble in the molten sulfur and more importantly, that they not volatilize upon exposure to the heat (185 C). In other words, this new reaction opens up only a small set of potential polymers.

But what properties this polymer is already showing!

Consider batteries. We are surrounded in our modern lives by lithium-ion batteries. They are in our cellphones and laptops, our cordless power tools, and even the Mars Curiosity Rover. A relative drawback of these batteries is that the anions are metallic and therefore heavy, reducing the energy density. It’s long been known that lithium-sulfur batteries have a high energy density and lower cost, but the degradation of the sulfur electrodes limits their long-term stability.

Preliminary testing of a lithium battery using this new sulfur-based polymer, however, shows that the performance is nearly identical to that of a standard lithium-sulfur battery but without the degradation. When this result is combined with the ease of processing this new polymer, the potential for lithium-sulfur batteries has suddenly become a lot sunnier.

Almost as sunny yellow as the color of elemental sulfur.

I’ve been running a ‘Science on the Screen’ course with a local college. Over the last few weeks we’ve been dissecting the science on the big and small screens. The home work was tough, but after a reasonable amount of popcorn and cough potatoing  we’ve pulled apart Dexter‘s blood spatter (it doesn’t seem to take gravity into account), Breaking Bad (it was fun upsetting Reddit), Spiderman (Peter Parker is going to need a very high protein diet to make all that web), James May’s Things you need to know about chemistry (remember that?) and Star Wars (how come lasers make a sound in space and why do storm troopers fly backwards when hit by a laser?).

After all that we thought it was time to see if we could do better and maybe “fix a film” (an idea blatantly nicked from Nonfisci (thanks guys)).

The students decided that Underworld  needed some attention. I’ve not seen it, but apparently its an action horror with vampires, werewolves and the like. The werewolves are regularly killed using bullets laced with silver nitrate. Upon impact the bullets release their contents and the silver (at this point the Ag+ has somehow been miraculously reduced) proves fatal to the riddled lycanthrope.

So how to fix the film? Simple really, you just need to perform Tollen’s reaction before the werewolf gets you.

The academic job application consists of a number of items. Most universities ask for a cover letter, CV, letters of recommendation, research proposals, and occasionally other materials (like a teaching statement). A candidate’s appeal to the search committee often depends on the presentation of his/her previous accomplishments (which I’ll discuss in the posts that follow) and, perhaps more importantly, research proposals.

Very few job posts provide guidelines for proposals. My understanding is that search committees want to see two or three original research ideas that are:

1. Different from the work of previous advisors.
2. Unique enough to show creativity and the ability to compete with others in the field.
3. Interesting enough to be potentially fundable.

Many people, me included, encourage those planning to apply for faculty positions to start thinking about original research ideas while in graduate school. Thinking about proposals early allows time to work through ideas as well as build a broad knowledge based about cutting-edge research. Not everyone will come up with a new, creative idea while in graduate school, but it’s helpful to start practicing and developing the strategies to do so early.

One strategy to fuel the creative process includes learning about research outside of your immediate field. While reading papers or walking though poster sessions, ask yourself: “How could this research contribute to my work?” and “How could my expertise contribute to their work?” Many major research advances bridge the gap between sub-disciplines. Gap-bridging ideas also have greater potential to appeal to more members of the search committee. Most academic hires are decided by entire departments, representing individuals from all ‘flavors’ of chemistry.

Quick aside: be cautious when getting excited about a new idea. It is very disappointing to come up with a ‘new idea’ and then discover after a literature search that someone else has already published it. Yet, this unfortunate event has a silver lining. It suggests you’re on the right track to coming up with feasible/publishable ideas.

Coming up with new ideas is difficult. There is also a large activation barrier to formalizing new ideas and writing them as a research proposal. There are many strategies to start and maintain the process, such as establishing incentives, deadlines, punishments, etc. In contrast to these self- dependent and willpower-driven strategies, I found joining/creating an Aspiring Professors Support Group especially helpful.

Our Aspiring Professor Support Group was composed of individuals interested in applying for academic jobs (either in 2012 or beyond) in various domains of chemistry, including organic, inorganic, analytical, and physical.  The members of the support group respected and trusted each other – an important factor. We were comfortable sharing our ideas and there were no concerns about anyone stealing and misrepresenting other’s ideas as their own. Once the support group was formed, we set up meetings—with deadlines—for presenting our research ideas.

We began meeting once a week in early July, 2012. At each meeting three people gave either a chalk talk or power point presentation on one proposal idea (6 people x 3 proposals each = 18 proposals over 6 weeks). Scheduling the presentations gave us a tangible deadline and forced us to think through and prepare our proposals before job applications were due.

These meetings served as the first filter, outside of our own minds, to gauge whether we should commit to writing down a particular proposal. We presented and defended our ideas in front of an audience and if there were fundamental flaws with a proposal—like infeasibility or impossibility—they were abandoned or revamped. The diversity of our Aspiring Professors Support Group also proved an important opportunity to see how chemists from other areas/domains responded to each idea. The group’s questions helped prepare me for the questions I might be asked during an actual interview.

In addition to formalizing ideas, the group was also helpful in other aspects of the job search. We sent new job openings to each other and shared anecdotes/stories/advice for the application process.

In the next blog post I’ll describe the next step: putting research proposals on paper.

Job postings: The postings for inorganic/energy/materials assistant professor positions at top 100, R1 institutions (in the United States) began appearing in July 2012 and continued until about November. Postings for professor positions at undergraduate-focused institutions continued well beyond into Spring 2013.

Application deadlines: The distribution of deadlines for the 38 positions I applied to are shown in the bar graph below. The first deadline was on September 10^th. The last was on December 1st. The most popular due date by far was October 15^th.

Interviews: I’ve heard of people receiving phone calls offering interviews as early as two weeks after the application deadline. Other people recounted receiving calls as late as February/March after search committees failed to find a viable candidate during their first round of interviews.

Rejection letters/emails: Some universities send rejection emails/letters after selecting candidates to interview (as early as November) while others send emails after making an offer to their top candidate. Some universities don’t send anything at all (10-20% of the schools I applied to).

Decisions, second visits and negotiations: Job offers are usually proffered between December and March. Second visits—a department’s chance to entice their top candidate to accept the offer—are scheduled soon after. Negotiations about start-up funds, lab space, teaching assignments and so on occur during the month following the offer and will continue until the final contract is signed (or rejected).

Graduate student recruiting weekend: If newly hired professors receive and accept an offer in time, they can potentially attend their new institution’s graduate student recruiting weekend. This event provides a chance for new professors to meet and start recruiting students to help establish their research group.

Start date: The most common start dates I saw listed on the job postings were July 1^st or August 1^st, but the actual start date is negotiable (to some degree).

As a real-life example, here is the start-to-finish timeline for the search process that ultimately ended in my assistant professor position at FSU:

• Application deadline: December 1^st
• Request for phone interview: January 9^th
• Phone interview: January 16^th
• Request for in-person interview: January 23^rd
• In-person interview: February 10-13^th
• Offer: February 20^th
• Second visit: March 8-11^th
• Negotiation: February 20^th to March 22^nd
• Formal Acceptance: March 27^th
• Graduate student recruiting weekend: March 29^th
• Official start date: August 8^th