Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Ivory Filter Flask: 1/26/16 edition

A few of the academic positions from C&EN Jobs:

River Falls, WI: The University of Wisconsin-River Falls is looking for a tenure-track assistant professor of inorganic chemistry.

Shantou, Guangdong Province, China: "Technion Israel Institute of Technology is establishing a new university in Shantou, Guangdong Province, China." They're looking for faculty. You'd have good stories for Christmas dinner, for sure.

Baltimore, MD: A "junior faculty" position in radiosynthesis at Johns Hopkins; something tells me it is not tenure-track. Looks like they're also looking for a postdoc.

Evanston, IL: Drug delivery postdoc at Northwestern.

DeLand, FL: Stetson University looking for a visiting assistant professor.

Lewiston, ME: Bates College, also looking for a visiting assistant professor of analytical chemistry.


  1. I assume a 'competitive' salary for a VAP is ~$50K? Maybe part of comp is not calling the position "temporary placeholder because we don't have enough money to hire an actual faculty member.

    1. Could be a prof is going on sabbatical for a year, I think this happens a fair amount at high end private schools. It can be done because there are plenty of PhD's who want teaching experience who will happily accept the temp position for 1 year.

    2. I get the supply/demand aspect (sucks for chemists/good for employers looking to save $). In an ideal world universities would hire based on the assumption that every prof will only work (x-1)/x years: where I assume x is 5-7 (in reality 3 for real sabbaticals, i.e. actually going to a different university, likely higher), and have sufficient faculty to cover teaching. Maternity leaves likely throw a spanner in works planning-wise, but given Americans think 12 weeks maternity leave is enough that shouldn't be too hard to accomodate.

    3. I went to a small liberal arts college. VAPs were used usually hired when a faculty member went on sabbatical or on medical or maternity leave.

  2. " radiosynthesis at Johns Hopkins"....Indeed. Two weeks back, I wrote to the person who posted that advertisement for more details about what sort of position. They have not yet responded.

  3. Quoting from the departmental website of one of the above potential employers:
    "Today, the employment outlook for chemists is excellent and projections indicate it will be even better in the near future. Careers in government or private industry include:

    New Materials - chemists have played an historic role in the development of polymers and today are finding new polymers, new ceramics, superconductors and new combinations of materials for applications in aerospace, electronics, medicine, building, and transportation industries.
    Energy - chemists are playing an important role in the development of materials for solar energy cells, new lasers, nuclear fusion research and in batteries and fuel cells for energy storage.
    Health - the development of chemotherapy reagents, pharmaceuticals, and time release drugs are areas for chemists. Chemists also play an important role in recombinant DNA technology and genetic engineering.
    Forensics - a chemistry degree provides an excellent background for the wide variety of chemical analyses used in forensics.
    Environment - monitoring the environment and the development of recycling processes for waste and reusable resources are chemical problems.
    Education - our nation is confronted with an urgent need for improving science education at the pre-college level. The challenge is great and the rewards for good teachers at the high school level are personally satisfying."

    Interesting assertions.

    1. It could be that the writers (and readers) of these materials have "apex fallacy", where you imagine the best outcome will apply to everybody who is being trained.

      "Apex fallacy" was not a fallacy in the 1960's when jobs were growing exponentially at the same time that one academic trains a lot of people. Unfortunately, since jobs in science are not increasing exponentially (but training still is the same), its a fallacy again.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.