Articles by: Kenneth Hanson

Alexandrite Effect: Not All White Light is Created Equal

Alexandrite is a gem that exhibits an amazing property. It appears red in incandescent light and green in sunlight. Incandescent light and sunlight both appear white when we look at them but, as Alexandrite demonstrates, not all white light is the same. Differences in white light sources can have a profound effect on how we perceive an object’s color. The Alexandrite Effect is a perfect example.

Image 1-compared

Blue, green, and red light are defined by single, specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum (~470 nm, ~540 nm, and ~650 nm, respectively). In contrast, white light is not a single wavelength. It is the sum of multiple, distinct portions of the visible spectrum. Just as many different numbers can be added together to reach 100 (50 + 50, 33 + 67, 99 + 1, etc.) there are many ways to add colors of “pure” light to make white light.

One of the most common man-made sources of white light is black-body radiation. Metallurgist produce white light via black-body radiation when they heat metal in a furnace.  Similarly, incandescent bulbs generate their glow by passing current across a metal element until it heats up and radiates.  Yet, while black-body radiation is an effective means of producing white light, it is very energetically inefficient (most of the energy input is used to produce infrared light/heat). A much more efficient means of creating white light is to combine a few specific wavelengths of the visible spectrum. The color combinations that produce white light are depicted in the CIE color diagram below.

Image 2 CIE

The colors along the rounded edge of the shape (everything but the bottom, straight edge) can be thought of as “pure” because they’re defined by a specific wavelength of light between 380 and 700 nm.  All colors inside the border as well as along the bottom, straight edge are created when two or more “pure” colors are combined. White light is at the “center” of the CIE diagram (x = 0.33 and y = 0.33).

I regularly referenced this diagram while researching organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) because molecules emit specific wavelengths of light and are not broad emitters (like heated metal). To make an OLED TV that displays most CIE colors, including white, manufactures incorporate blue (x = 0.1666, y = 0.0089), green (x = 0.2738, y = 0.7174) and red (x = 0.7347, y = 0.2653) emitting molecules in the screen design.  To make an OLED screen appear yellow, both the red and the green molecules must be electronically excited and emit at the same time. The resulting color is entirely dependent on the proportion of red and green molecules excited. Exciting more green than red molecules makes the screen appear greenish-yellow. Exciting more red than green molecules makes it appear reddish-orange. If we want the screen to appear yellow, then the intensities of the emitting red and green molecules must be balanced. These “summed” emission can be depicted by drawing a straight line between the red and green points on the CIE diagram (image below).

Image 3-Yellow CIE

Similar strategies are used to generate different types of white emitting OLEDs. Every day, ambient white light is sometimes created by summing the emissions of blue and yellow emitting molecules (image below left). White pixels on OLED TVs are created by summing red, green and blue emitters (image below right).

Image 4- white light cie

We perceive any light source emitting these two color combinations as white. However, illuminating an object, like alexandrite, under these various white light sources can uncover really interesting color chemistry.

Chrysoberyl is an oxide with the formula BeAl2O4 which is typically colorless or yellow because it absorbs little to no visible light. Alexandrite is the rarest and most valuable member of the chrysoberyl family and is formed when some of the Al3+ is replaced by Cr3+, either naturally or intentionally.

The small amount of Cr3+ impurity in Alexandrite (<1 %) is directly responsible for its interesting colors. This coloration can be depicted via the absorption spectrum below.

Image 5- absorbance spectrum

This absorption spectrum is a graphical depiction of the amount of light absorbed/removed/not transmitted (y-axis) versus the wavelength of light (x-axis). Unlike undoped chrysoberyl, Alexandrite has two strong absorption peaks in the visible spectrum at ~400 nm and ~600 nm (for those of you crystal field junkies, the peaks at ~400 nm and ~600 nm are assigned to the 4A2 to 4T1 and the 4A2 to 4T2 transitions of octahedrally coordinated Cr3+). Conversely, it has two low absorptions, or high transmission windows, in the blue-green (470-520 nm) and red (>650 nm) portions of the spectrum.

When Alexandrite is viewed under uniform white light (the sum of ALL visible wavelengths of light) the blue and yellow portions of visible light are absorbed and the blue-green and red portions are not (below left). This gives the gem a purple-grey–the sum of blue-green and red emission–appearance (below right).

Image 6-full white

But, as I said above, not all white light sources are the same. Even though sunlight appears white if you look directly at it (don’t look directly at it!), it actually has a larger contribution from the blue and green portions of the spectrum. Under sunlight, Alexandrite absorbs yellow and blue. Yet, since more green and blue light is transmitted than red light, the gem appears blue-green, as depicted below.

Image 7- sunlight

In contrast, when Alexandrite is placed under incandescent lights or a candle, which have a larger contribution from the red portion of the spectrum, the gem appears red.

Image 8-Candle light

Based on the absorption spectra above, the Alexandrite effect could be greatly amplified if we viewed it under a two-component, white OLED (or a comparable two-color emitter). We could produce a white OLED by combining light from a ~490 nm and a ~590 nm emitter. When viewed under this light source, I’d expect Alexandrite to be a very sharp cyan color because the amber component (590 nm) would be entirely absorbed.

Image 9-cyan from OLED

The relatively narrow emission of molecular species (50-100 nm) would also likely result in a much sharper color for Alexandrite than what is observed in the sun or under incandescent lights. If anyone has an easy way to perform this experiment, I would love to see the result.

That concludes my lengthy but thorough explanation of the interesting color chemistry of Alexandrite, a gem that is sometimes describes as an “emerald by day, ruby by night.” And maybe, experiment pending, this phrase will one day include “cyan by OLED.”


Farrell, E. F.; Newnham, R. E.; The American Mineralogist, 1965, 50, 1972-1981.

Liu, Y.; Shigley, J. E.; Fritsch, E.; Hemphill, S.; Mineralogical Magazine 1995, 59, 111-114.

Speaking of To Many Periodic Tables…

My wife and I married 4 years ago overlooking the ocean in Palos Verdes, California. It was a very small wedding (n = 8) without a reception. A month ago, we finally got the chance to bring all our friends together for a better-late-than-never celebration in Minneapolis, Minnesota. My wife insisted we have a periodic table of cupcakes for dessert.

Two days before the party we learned that the business that was going to provide the cupcakes closed up shop. After a panicked internet search and a few telephone calls we found our last-minute, aptly named savior: Cupcake. With less than a 24-hour notice they had 120 cupcakes waiting for us to pick up.

Below are photos of the final display as well as a ‘flavor map’. The element labels/toppers were made out of colored, melted chocolate.  Looking back, my only regret is that I only had two cupcakes.

By July 11, 2013 6 comments fun

“Get a job, Ken!” Part 8: The Offer, Second Visit, and Negotiation

This is the eighth and final post in my “Get a job, Ken!” series. In this post I’ll talk about what follows job interviews:  job offers, second visits, the negotiation process, and signing the contract.

The Job Offer

After each interview I was given an approximate timeline for the committee’s decision. Once that timeline ran out, every phone call I received triggered excitement and stress. I highly recommend programming the department or search committee chairs’ phone numbers into your address book so you can quickly identify their calls. Otherwise, you risk dealing with the telemarketer debacle I mentioned in my previous post. When ‘The Call’ finally came the first fifteen seconds of introductions and casual niceties were a never-ending blur. After the reveal— “we are excited to offer you a position in the department of chemistry at U of X!” —it took me at least five minutes before I felt anything. That’s when an ongoing mix of emotions began. These feelings oscillate between euphoria, panic and dumbstruck wonder.

On the other hand, ‘The Call’ can also hypothetically be a rejection. I did get rejections. Yet, my rejections never came in the form of a phone call. If I hadn’t yet heard anything from the search committee several weeks after the decision deadline, I’d email the chair inquiring about the status of the search. It was only then, through email, that I’d learn another candidate received the offer. Maybe they were waiting to tell me after the other person accepted and I was potentially the fallback candidate. Alternatively—as I’ve heard told by others—there might not have been a plan to notify me at all. I could have been left to learn about the decision through the grapevine. After facing this void of search-committee silence, I’ve made a vow: if I am ever on a hiring committee, I will make sure to give a courtesy phone call or email to candidates not offered the job.

Second Visits

When I did receive an offer, it was quickly followed with an invitation for a second visit. The trip—which usually lasts at least three days and occurs within a month of the offer—is an opportunity for the department to convince their top candidate (and his or her significant other) to take the position. For the candidate it’s an opportunity to get a better feel for the department, university, and surrounding city. The second visit will vary from university to university, but below I try to paint a general picture of the visit based on my own and others experiences.

Day 1: Meetings and Dinner with Faculty

Prior to my second visit I was asked if there were any specific meetings I would like to schedule. I used this opportunity to request meetings with people who would be important to my future in the department, such as the staff laser spectroscopist, the glassblower, and potential faculty collaborators/mentors. I met with these individuals (as availability allowed) as well as 6-7 additional faculty during the first day of my second visit. The day’s schedule was similar to the 30-minute meeting marathon during the interview, but significantly less stressful. The most exciting part of the day was a tour of lab spaces my group could potentially occupy. The most important meeting of the day was with the department chair, during which we started the negotiation process. To prepare for this meeting the department chair asked me to create a space and budget proposal, which served as the starting point for our discussion. I’ll talk about the negotiation process as well as the space and budget proposals in much greater detail below.

That evening the chemistry department also hosted a welcome dinner for my wife and me at one of the faculty member’s homes. It was a friendly and less formal chance to interact with my potential co-workers outside of the university.

Day 2: House Hunting and Dinner with Faculty

On the second day the department set my wife and I up with a realtor to look at and discuss the local housing market. While I had no plans to purchase a house without first living in and experiencing a city for at least six months, it was a useful way to learn about the town and to imagine ourselves living there. The realtor also provided a non-‘academic’ perspective of the town and university.

That evening we also had dinner with a few faculty and their significant others. Although this did not happen for us, this evening might also include “court-side seats” to a sporting event depending on the season.

Day 3: Free day

During our third and final full day my wife and I were able to do whatever we wished. Throughout the visit we collected a number of recommendations to popular local attractions. For example, in Tallahassee we were encouraged to visit Wakulla Springs and St. George Island.

Things to consider/ask during this visit:

One of the most important factors in my decision to accept or decline the offer was how well I fit in the department. I had heard that term fit a dozen times prior and I have mentioned it throughout this blog series, but I have not really defined it. It’s hard to define because it’s many things: How do faculty members generally dress (casual or formal)? What are their attitudes towards teaching? Do they collaborate? Was I interested in the seminar speakers they brought in? Were my one-on-one meetings reciprocal? Are there people there who will understand my research and vice versa? These are just a few of the many fit related questions I asked myself.

Thankfully, many of these fit questions were already answered by the time I got an offer. The interview process provided an opportunity to size up a department’s culture and whether or not I felt like I’d fit in. Likewise, having given me an offer, the department clearly liked my research, felt I fulfilled their needs, and could see me as their co-worker. I hate myself for being cliché but when you find the right fit, you will know. At least that is what I found during my visits at FSU.

Here is a list of other questions/considerations when reflecting on the chemistry department:

  • Do they have the resources you need for your research: machine shop, glass blower, electronic shops, NMR, mass spectrometer, etc.?
  • How do they handle purchasing and grant submitting?
  • Do they have new faculty orientation?
  • Are there seminars about teaching/mentoring?
  • Are there clear tenure requirements?
  • Are the faculty priorities clearly defined (percent of time dedicated to teaching, research, outreach, departmental duties)?
  • Is there a strong sense of community?
  • Is the department collegial (do most faculty get along)?
  • Do assistant professors receive feedback prior to the tenure decision?
  • Is there sufficient journal access?
  • How many dedicated support staff are there?
  • Are there sufficient teaching assistants?
  • Are assistant professors assigned formal mentors or do they get to choose?
  • Are there single or multiple mentors?
  • How do they handle patents?
  • How do they handle in department conflicts?

Also, here are some things to consider about life outside of the lab/classroom:

  • Do they support work-life integration?
  • Are their child care services?
  • What are their policies on maternity/paternity leave?
  • How is the quality of life in town (safety, cost of living, commute time, pace)?
  • How family-friendly is the University/town?
  • Does the town/area support your hobbies?
  • Will your significant other have job prospects?
  • What is the quality of the school system?
  • Can you handle the weather?

I stole most of these questions from Success on the Tenure Track: Five Keys to Faculty Job Satisfaction. It is a book dedicated to assessing, based on survey of faculty at major universities, what factors are responsible for the happiest and most successful new faculty.


The majority of the negotiation occurred during my meeting with the department chair. Much to my pleasant surprise, the negotiation process was less somber and stressful than I expected. As I mentioned before, the department chair ask me to bring a space and budget proposal to the meeting. The proposals served as a starting point for our negotiations. Here’s an overview of what I included in each:

Space proposal

This proposal outlined the space I would need (including square footage and type of space) during my first five years conducting research. For example, I asked for 600 sq ft of synthetic space with at least four 6ft fume hoods and 400 sq ft of empty space for optical tables.

Budget proposal

Budget proposals vary from chemist to chemist since they are very dependent on discipline and proposed research. Here’s an overview of the strategy I used when preparing my budget proposal:

1) I first read through my research proposals and made note of what equipment I would need to pursue my projects. I then walked through my current lab space (and a few other labs) adding any additional equipment I missed in my first draft.

2) I partitioned the equipment into several funding categories:

  • Major equipment (>$50,000): Fluorometer, nanosecond transient absorption system, etc.
  • Minor equipment ($5,000-$50,000): Potentiostat, UV-Vis, rotary evaporator, glove box, etc.
  • Other equipment (<$5,000): Balances, ovens, fridges, freezers, centrifuges, etc.
  • Benches/Hoods (~$10,000/hood): Schlenk line, vacuum, hotplate/stirrer, glassware, etc.
  • General laboratory materials, supplies and consumables (~$150,000)
  • Travel funds (~$10,000): For me, postdocs and graduate students to travel to conferences
  • Computing supplies (~$10,000): computers, printers, scanners and software (this can be surprisingly expensive)

3) I then created an excel spreadsheet, listing each item, its cost, and quantity. The more detailed the list, the easier it was to justify the grand total (as displayed at the bottom of the spreadsheet).

4) There was one additional category which included my summer salary (1/3 of the yearly salary) as well as the salaries of research assistants. It is not necessarily possible to know preemptively how much a grad student or postdoc will cost per year at a given university, so I assumed they were ~$40,000 per year.

5) I then sent the excel file to the department chair in preparation for our negotiation meeting.

Quick tip 1: Ask for example budget proposals from friends or young professors in your current department.

Quick tip 2: Get multiple quotes for any equipment costing more than $5000, but only include one quote, whichever you prefer, for each instrument in the budget proposal.

Quick tip 3: You do not have to pursue the projects you proposed. If you do plan to pursue alternate projects, budget accordingly. However, you will have to justify your proposed budget to the department chair, who must in turn justify it to the ‘higher ups’.

Quick tip 4: If you don’t ask, you won’t get it! So make sure to include anything that you might need.

In addition to the budget (your start-up funds) and lab space, below are several major items that can also be included in the negotiation (which is also institution dependent):

  • Lab/Office Location
  • Salary: Negotiation in this area is less likely at public schools where the salary is usually decided by some predetermined metric. Interestingly, you can find faculty salaries for most public institutions online.
  • Teaching Load: This may already be decided. Also, most assistant professors are given a choice of two semesters off during their first five years.
  • Departmental responsibilities (committees, curriculum development, etc.)
  • Employment for your significant other.

Prior to the second visit, the department chair looked through my budget proposal and noted major and minor equipment already available in the department. I was happy to learn that some of the equipment was already available and operational (cutting down on my start-up time). Other equipment, while available, was heavily used by other research groups. For these items—which were pivotal to my research and would be frequently used—I requested funds to purchase my own instrument so as not to impede progress.

The chair also looked through my space proposal and gave me a tour the potential spaces. It was fun to actually walk through them and consider how the space would fit my needs. Some of the spaces were new, others needed renovation. The to-be-renovated spaces were appealing because I could design the lab according to my needs, but I have heard too many horror stories of renovations extending way beyond the projected timeline. I opted out of these spaces as losing the first 6 months (10% of tenure) could prove devastating.

After the initial discussion and the second visit, the chair and I went back and forth revising my budget and space needs until we converged on what would be the final offer.

While the process occasionally felt daunting, I reminded myself that, unlike a used car sales person, the department chair was not “out to get” me. University’s make a major investment in new assistant professors. It’s in their best interest to provide the tools necessary for their success. At the same time, I also aimed to be reasonable. If there was a piece of equipment I wanted, but wouldn’t use very often and could access elsewhere, I didn’t insist on having my own.

I also never forgot that I was potentially going to be working with this ‘opponent’ for the next decade or two. Nobody wants to start out a long-term relationship on a bad note.

Before entering the negotiation process I was struck by the realization that I was going from years of making a little more than minimum wage to negotiating a million dollar contract. I also realized that I’d spent more time (by orders of magnitude) researching a single chemistry paper than on how to negotiate. Coincidentally, I ran into a professor that teaches a class on negotiation and he recommended the following books:

I really enjoyed reading “Getting to Yes.” If I am going to be perfectly honest, most of what I read was not necessary for my startup negotiation. However, the book did help make me more confident about the process. Worst case scenario, I learned tools that can be used in other scenarios like dealing with street vendors or purchasing a house.

Signing The Contract

After the dust settled and I felt like all my questions were answered, I was sent a contract. It contained detailed information on my salary, lab space, teaching load and other university responsibilities. I then made everything official by signing and returning the contract.

Bonus: If you accept the offer early enough you can attend graduate student recruiting weekends. These weekends are great because it is an opportunity to recruit students to the university and your research group.


That’s it! This post concludes my “Get a job, Ken!” series. It’s been a long journey, for both the job search and documenting the process in these posts. I hope that you found at least some of the content useful.  Also, please remember that this is only one person’s limited perspective. Get advice from as many people as possible.

Good luck to everyone in their job search! If any of this helps you or you have an anecdote to share, please send me an email. I look forward to hearing about your experiences.

By June 9, 2013 7 comments Uncategorized

“Get a job, Ken!” Part 7: Research/Proposal Talks and Meeting with the Chair

The research talk and proposal talk are arguably the most important parts of the on-site interview. This post, part seven in the “Get a job, Ken! series” delves into both, as well as the final meeting with the department chair.

My first piece of advice for those preparing for an on-site interview is to purchase and practice with a slide-advancing remote (a.k.a. a laser pointer or ‘clicker’). I find it tragic when a great scientist appears incompetent because they don’t know how to use a borrowed clicker. It’s worthwhile owning a clicker that you know like the back of your hand. In fact, for young graduate students, I recommend investing in a clicker and practicing with it as soon as possible. I am partial to the Logitech Wireless Presenter (The author declares no competing financial interests).

The Research Talk

Standard seminar talks have one primary goal, to share science. Research talks during an interview have two additional goals. The first is to briefly introduce your area of research and lay a foundation for the concepts and techniques relevant to your proposal talk. This groundwork will allow for extra time during the proposal talk (vida infra) to discuss your ideas. Of course, it’s important to seek a balance since not everyone who attends your proposal talk will be at the research talk, and vice versa.

The second goal of the research talk is to demonstrate your teaching skills. The presentation will be open to all faculty and students—basically any involved in the hiring decision—and they’ll be asking themselves: How engaging and eloquent is this applicant? How well does he or she explain new concepts? What kind of teaching methods do they use (analogies, examples, images, etc.)? How good is she or he at answering questions?

I have seen way too many talks that care more about demonstrating “I’m smart!” than actually communicating ideas. In these “I am so smart” presentations only two or three audience members have the expertise necessary to follow along past the first few slides. Please be assured that the audience already knows you’re smart, competent, and can publish complex ideas in top-tier, peer reviewed journals. They want to know if you’re also able to share your ideas with non-experts (i.e. students).

The research talk will generally be scheduled for one hour, which will include a short introduction and a ten minute question and answer session at the end. I made sure to avoid 1) going over the allotted time because it can imply time management issues or 2) finishing the presentation in under 30 minutes, which might  suggest a lack of content/results. I did my best to aim for a 40-50 minute presentation. Most audience members will not mind if they get to leave a little early.

Also, presenters usually have about 15 minutes to prepare before the talk. But be forewarned that when earlier meetings run long, you’ll have to jump into the presentation without any prep time.

Proposal Talk

The job interview proposal talk is a lot like a graduate student proposal talk (also sometimes known as a qualifying exam) but with a slightly different focus. The primary focus of a qualifying exam is to defend your ideas.  In addition to defending your ideas during the job proposal talk, you’re expected to provide tangible ways of pursuing the ideas and mentoring young researchers along the way. Similar to the written proposal, the general outline for most proposal talks is 1) introduce a problem that needs to be solved, 2) mention how others are trying to solve it, 3) introduce how you are trying to solve it, and 4) discuss why your method is better and 5) mention the possible implications of your work.

I started my proposal talk with an outline slide. While everyone was getting situated they were able to view the slide and familiarize themselves with my flavor of research. Below is an outline slide example:

Not all audience members will have read your proposals or attended the previous research talk, so you’ll also want to briefly introduce a few important concepts while explaining your research plans. In all likelihood, you’ll be the foremost expert on your proposed research area since they wouldn’t have brought you in for an interview if they had someone already in that niche. You’ll also be asked a number of questions. In addition to the questions from the phone interview (previous post), here are several questions that colleagues and I were asked during the proposal talk:

  • What type of group structure do you envision for your research program?
  • In terms of personnel, what would your lab look like?  How many graduate students/post-docs/undergrads in 5 years? In the long-term?
  • How do you plan to integrate students into your research projects?
  • What will be your approach to mentoring and supervising student progress?
  • Which proposal do you like most?
  • Which proposal is likely to give results the fastest (I.e. which is safe and which is high-risk/high reward)?
  • Which proposals/projects could new students work on right away?
  • Let’s say that next summer you’ll have 2 graduate students and 1 post-doc, what projects would you start them on?
  • What do your proposals have in common? Or what is your proposals central overriding theme (synthesis, electrochemistry, mechanism, etc.)? How do you define yourself as a chemist?
  • Does your proposed research projects depart from your mentors’ work and if so, how?
  • Are you aware of any competitors in the areas of your proposed research? How do you feel about competing with them?
  • Given the courses that are in the U of X handbook, which courses would you prefer to teach?
  • What preliminary results do you need to get in order to go after major grants or a career award?
  • What happens if a fundamental aspect of your proposals fails? Could you still salvage a paper and what would the community learn from that “failure”?

All of my proposal talks were either during or immediately following lunch on the third day. The length of the talk varied between 60-90 minutes, but the number of slides I actually made it through varied depending on the number of questions posed by the audience. In one of my interviews the audience only asked scientific questions so I got through everything in under an hour. In another interview the audience asked at least 30 minutes worth of logistical questions about teaching classes and running a research group so I didn’t finish the presentation in the allotted 90 minutes. Since the presentation portion is so unpredictable the best you can do is put together a presentation where you hope for the best, but are prepared for the worst.

Final tip: Be genuinely enthusiastic about your proposals. If you are not excited then it will be difficult for your audience to be excited too.

Meeting with the Chair

The last formal meeting of the interview will most likely be with the chair of the chemistry department. While sometimes casual, the 30-60 minute meeting was much more business-focused (i.e. startup funds and lab space). This meeting might have been my favorite part of the interview because it included a tour of my potential lab and office space. The tour was my  first real glimpse into what it might be like to run a lab in that particular department. I would walk through the rooms envisioning students working on my research and thinking about where I would put the UV-Vis, potentiostat, fluorometer, etc.

This meeting isn’t time to negotiate space, but going into the meeting it’s helpful to have an idea of what kind of space you’ll need during the first 5 years. Ask yourself: Is your research going to be focused on synthesis or characterization? If so, how many fume hoods? How much bench space? Do you need room for laser tables? Do you need/want proximity to departmental equipment or researchers doing related work? Most of the chairs I met with already had a rough idea of what space I would need based on my background and proposal, but they still ask for my rough estimate. I recommend touring your current advisors space and taking an inventory of how many hoods and square footage they have per person as a starting point.

You’ll also likely be asked—either in this meeting or even before arriving—for a rough budget estimate. For the most part, this budget will include the major pieces of equipment needed to conduct your research and their estimated cost. Although unusual, I sent my budget proposal to the department chair a week before I arrived on campus for the interview. I wanted to show I was serious, had done my homework, and that I was prepared to run a research group. My biggest concern was that the budget I proposed was off the wall, but I followed the suggestion of others. A reasonable budget proposal will depend on your flavor of research (spectroscopists are more expensive than synthetic chemists are more expensive than theoreticians). Also, top 50 schools budget proposals (including personnel) are usually somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000 while top 50-100 research institutions are usually somewhere between $300,000 and $750,000.

During this final meeting I also was given an update on the faculty-hiring timeline. I’d find out when the last candidate would be interviewed, when the committee planned to meet for a decision, and when I’d likely hear the department’s decision. In practice, the actual timeline more often than not ended up being about 2-4 weeks longer than the estimate.

By May 23, 2013 1 comment Uncategorized