Advertisement
Grab your lab coat. Let's get started
Welcome!
Welcome!
Create an account below to get 6 C&EN articles per month, receive newsletters and more - all free.
It seems this is your first time logging in online. Please enter the following information to continue.
As an ACS member you automatically get access to this site. All we need is few more details to create your reading experience.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
Not you? Sign in with a different account.
ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
New professors
Kudos to Lisa Jarvis, the C&EN staff, and the generous candor of the three first-year chemistry department faculty members you showcased in your May 22 article “A year in the life of a new professor” (page 34). I found this cover story to be a very interesting and enlightening read. It was clear that the three young faculty members you showcased poured everything each had into the job, grew and accomplished a good bit over the year, and are very deserving of being tenure-track young faculty at their respective universities.
Timothy J. Rydel
Saint Charles, Mo.
I enjoyed your feature on the first-year experience for newly minted assistant professors. In this era of the $2 million start-up package, my own experience in 1963 with Yale University offers an interesting contrast. The matter of start-up assistance was never discussed. It was tacitly assumed that the needed funds would come from NIH or NSF, and indeed my NIH grant was activated on my first day of appointment. Yale did end up contributing; they had asked me to include $8,000 for lab renovations in my NIH proposal. By the time the grant was funded, the renovations had been completed at Yale’s expense. Alas, Yale learned too late that work completed before the grant had been approved could not be reimbursed. So the $8,000 became my start-up package.
Christopher K. Mathews
Corvallis, Ore.
From the web
The story of three first-year professors also resonated with readers who commented online.
cenm.ag/ayearinthelife
Re: A year in the life of a new professor
A senior VP once told me, as I took on the role of leading a group at a biotech company, “Imagine that every day you come to work, you’re given $1,000 to spend, because that is roughly what it costs the company to employ you, once you have factored in your salary, benefits, facilities, equipment, and consumables. Spend that money wisely, as if it were your own.” It was a valuable lesson in time and resource management, but also in personal responsibility. It doesn’t matter where you are in an organization, top, middle, or bottom of the career ladder, the advice still works well.
Jim Palmer
Hey @cenmag How about profiling chem asst profs at lib arts colleges? Diff challenges, important career option! #realtimechem
Mary Boyd (@marykboyd) via Twitter
Your title on the cover seems to suggest that the tenure track is the only academic option for chemists. How about the teaching track?
M. Gallardo-Williams (@Teachforaliving) via Twitter
Great article! As a new asst prof starting my own lab I think these are broadly relevant themes outside chemistry!
James R. Priest (@JamesRPriestMD) via Twitter
Industry is no different than teaching in a university or college. Yes, teaching is hard and rewarding work. I have taught part-time while working 40–50 hours in my full-time job. Plus I do not receive a three-month vacation. Try doing what industrial chemists do and I suspect you would still choose teaching. The plaques on the door for an industrial chemist are an even longer list.
Dave Wynn
Senior Correspondent Lisa Jarvis (@Lisamjarvis) asked her followers on Twitter: Interesting comments on my “Life as a new PI” story from chemists in industry. Folks, think the jobs are comparable?
I think the learning curve is steep in both. @DrRubidium quote is spot-on for industrial researchers. Teamwork is under-taught in Ph.D./ PIs need more breadth & have an entrepreneurial aspect of their jobs (starting a lab) that is lacking in established industrial labs./ Industrial chemists have to adapt to teamwork atmosphere, learn new technical/ scientific skills & corporate env. Focus on science is #1./ Learn to be productive in a “regular” workday. Manage time in lab with other obligations and expectations. Build your network with peers./ Ultimately 1st year industrial scientists distinguish themselves by their scientific accomplishments while contributing to their team./ Biggest diff: Problem selection; in industry, problems find you & can’t decide not to take them on. No need to convince others of value. Six tweets from L.-C. Campeau (@DrLCsquare) via Twitter
What they share is chemistry, but not much else. Big difference is a choice about which problems to solve (a double-edged blade!). Philip Wheeler (@Humulonimbus) via Twitter
Only way to answer that question. Your next series: A Year in the Life: Following a First- Year Hire in Industry George VDD (@HLA_Alchemist) via Twitter
Correction
May 29, page 5: The U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy was established by the America Competes Act of 2007, not by the Obama Administration. Congress first funded it in 2009.
Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © 2024 American Chemical Society
You might also like...
The power is now in your (nitrile gloved) hands
Sign up for a free account to get more articles. Or choose the ACS option that’s right for you.
Already have an ACS ID? Log in
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on X