Making the jump: Expert guidance on transitioning to academic independence

After a long period of training, first as a graduate student and then typically as a postdoctoral researcher, many young investigators face the next natural step in academic career advancement: obtaining a position as an independent investigator. Many researchers realize at this stage that the training they have received in the course of their academic career does not include planning or preparation to face the (admittedly daunting) academic job market. To provide senior postdocs and graduate students with guidance and advice, we organized a seminar series devoted to demystifying the job market, clarifying the different stages of the job search, and providing an informal guide for young researchers looking to “make the jump.” The seminar series was organized as a sequence of roundtable question-and-answer discussion sessions with faculty members from the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. These sessions covered the four fundamental steps of the job search: (a) preparation of an application package, (b) Skype/remote interview, (c) campus visit, including the job talk and “chalk” talk, and (d) negotiations. Here, we summarize the many useful insights distilled throughout these roundtable sessions with the goal of providing information and guidance to a broader community of researchers on the best way to prepare for and tackle the faculty job market, hoping to complement already existing career advice for young neuroscientists (D Belin, 2016; Hanganu-Opatz, Mameli, Káradóttir, & Spires-Jones, 2015; Káradóttir, Letzkus, Mameli, & Ribeiro, 2015; Schwabe, López-Bendito, & Ribeiro, 2016; Spires-Jones, Poirazi, & Grubb, 2016; Yaksi, Poirazi, & Hanganu-Opatz, 2016) with concrete guidance on the steps of the job search process. These sessions primary focused on job searches at institutions within the United States. However, we believe that much of the advice that was generated applies to those searching outside of the United States as well, and we specifically discuss differences that apply to the European job market (see Box 1).

Box 1. Differences in the European job market.

The data and advice presented here are focused on the US job market. However, there can be substantial differences between the US and European systems, which can lead to substantial differences in the job search process and the adequate strategy to follow. We highlight a few of them here:

• On finding a job posting: word-to-mouth can also play an important role in identifying the right candidates, for example, personal emails received by PI advisors asking them to advertise the position among their students, soliciting asking their application.

• On when to apply: There is no rule regarding the number of post-PhD years requested for job applications and in Europe the estimate seems broader than in the United States (3–8 years). Note however that fellowships for young investigators do have hard limits set by funding agencies either as a minimum (e.g., 4 years post-PhD for some starting fellowships) or a maximum (e.g., for the DZNE in Germany, the limit is set at 6 years) time post-graduation. The yearly cycle also happens in Europe, although sometimes the timeline can be different, for example, in the UK applications are due in the fall but interviews can start earlier than in the United States, often around Dec, while in France the applications to University positions happen in early spring (February–March) and are quickly followed by interviews in May–June. In some cases, positions are open year-round.

• On interviews: Skype interviews are not that common for faculty positions. The campus visit and job talk can vary greatly across countries and institutions, for example, many places in the UK and France invite all interviewees to give consecutive talks on the same day.

• On job talks: They are not always public and the audience can be limited to the committee.

• On chalk talks: In Europe, chalk talks are not that frequent. There may be an interview panel after the public talk has been given (UK), but there is no chalk talk per se.

• On negotiations: How much room there is for negotiations varies quite a bit from country to country—for example public universities in many European countries (which include many of the top universities in Europe) have graded salary scales. In many German research institutes (Max-Planck, DSNE), salary is determined by collective agreements for public sectors. In France (Universities, CNRS), salary is very rarely negotiated, and if it does happen this occurs before the post is even published. In the vast majority of cases, the position is designated at a particular level of a scale fixed by the government for government employees and which specifies the salary. Subsequent promotions are based on merit by examination of your achievements by a committee. Negotiations with the administration are not the rule happen, on some rare cases, it is possible to negotiate a bit that the institution is sufficiently interested in your application, especially in Research Institutes that tend to be more flexible. Generally, start-up and laboratory space can be and should be negotiated, and differences among countries are to be expected (i.e., there may be less flexibility in the French than in the Swiss, Austrian or UK systems).

• On failed searches: In France, the recruitment committee decides of a list of candidates ordered by preference. They can decide to list only one person (such that the search fails if that person is not recruited) or many (in which case the process is repeated with each candidate until one accepts). So the search may fail (as in the US) or not, but it is hard to tell from the applicant's perspective.

• On positions governmentally regulated: While in many universities (e.g., in the UK, in Germany, Bocconi University in Italy, Pompeu-Fabra University in Spain) the recruitment process is fairly similar to the United States, in the institutions where the recruitment is organized by the government and where recruits are government workers, the process can become highly bureaucratic. This has important implications—research merits, for example, could count for significantly less, and in some cases, not at all because internal candidates can be favored for the position. This well-known problem of “inbreeding” happens at some places and not at others. Although it is becoming less common, one should be aware that it still happens in some European countries (e.g., Spain, France, Italy).

• On sharing personal information: There may be significant differences on how much personal information you are expected to share. Asking about spouse job prospects and plans and country of origin is not unusual, although this varies by country (e.g., not that common in Germany). If you or your spouse are from the country where the institution resides, you might convey a greater interest in working there, which may lead to a stronger application, but perhaps to a slightly weaker negotiation position (if the case the committee believe you are set on accepting anyway). If you are in this situation you need to emphasize how important your research agenda is.

• On the two-body problem: Approaches to this vary significantly across countries and institutions in Europe. In a number of UK universities this “double hiring” is seen as “discrimination” against other people who could be getting the job that your spouse is getting, so do not expect help. Other universities can be very accommodating. The best strategy is likely to politely enquire about the institutional policy, and emphasize just how important it is for your future that your spouse is happy and committed to stay.

• On transitional grants: In Europe, it is possible to apply for start-up grants prior to having a position, which facilitates getting a position. Some of these grants are the ERC starting grant, Marie Curie, or the ATIPE but also more punctual grants (e.g., IDEX fellowships). This type of transitional grants also exist in the United States (e.g., NIH K-99 or K01) and are an asset when looking for a job, but in Europe they may open the door to a permanent position at the institution.

• On tenure: There is wide variation in the evaluation criteria to get tenure, so it is good to clarify this from the very start. Do they expect grants (these are always welcome, but not always a requirement depending on the country/institution), if so what funding mechanisms are there in place in the country? What happens when you get such grants, many places in Europe have teaching buy-outs as in the United States, but not everywhere so it is best to find out in advance.

1 ∣. BEFORE THE APPLICATION PROCESS BEGINS

The first consideration after you have decided to pursue an independent position is to determine when to enter into the job market. The timing will vary from field to field; for most biomedical fields in the United States, it is common for researchers to collect 5–7 years of postdoctoral experience in 1 or 2 laboratories before heading out into the market. Have a look at the CVs of recent hires in your department and similar departments in other universities, talk to friends and get advice from your advisor(s).

1.1 ∣. When to apply

When should you apply for an independent position? The answer changes from field to field, but it is safe to say that most people will jump on the job market before they feel fully ready for it. A somewhat aggressive approach is a good strategy—even if it is too early, the experiences you accumulate during your first go at the job market will prove invaluable 1 or 2 years down the line, and there is always a chance that things may work out on that exploratory effort. However, you want to have a clear idea of your future research plans and the obvious downside is that looking for a job takes time. Preparing application materials, practicing talks and doing due diligence on your target departments will take time away from your research, but most of this effort is not wasted. For example, writing a research strategy will force you to think through your career and research plans, and practicing talks will make you more effective at giving public presentations. It is not necessary to wait until all of your papers are published—it is fine to have manuscripts under review, in preparation (you can include a draft in the application, if the writing is sufficiently advanced) or in publicly available repositories (e.g., arXiv and bioRxiv). Although not peer-reviewed and published, these provide the committee with an appreciation of your trajectory and your likely productivity over the next year. Committees are looking for an upward trajectory and your drafts can help make the case. Your mentor can also speak to the progress and novelty of your research in their letter of support.

1.2 ∣. Where to find job postings

Online resources are a great and convenient source of job postings. Websites like HERC jobs, Science careers, AcademicKeys, NatureJobs and HigherEdJobs are popular and will allow you to filter the postings and set automated email alerts. Increasingly, Twitter is a good source of information on job positions. Departments may tweet their own announcements, and there are also specific accounts dedicated to curating and advertising positions within specific fields (e.g., @neurorumblr managed by Adam J. Calhoun). A few online forums are popular (e.g., Psychology Academic Job Search; psychjobsearch.wikidot.com) and sometimes provide crowd-sourced updates when interview invitations are extended and offers are accepted. If your university has a career development or job hub, they may be able to point you in the right direction. Sometimes job postings are circulated via internal listservs (e.g., for postdocs or graduate students). Note that each European country has its own recruitment system. In France for instance, assistant professor positions are all managed by the same website (Galaxie) which is distinct from the website managing the recruitment of permanent researchers at the CNRS (Centre National the la Recherche Scientifique). It is advisable to contact local researchers to learn more about the specificity of the country system. You should also ask your mentor, laboratory mates and colleagues whether they have any interesting leads. If you are able to make direct connections with people on hiring committees at workshops or conferences, this is an opportunity to learn more about upcoming positions at other universities and identify yourself as someone of interest to the committee.

1.3 ∣. Fit

Whether you are well suited to the job posting may be a critical factor, or not at all. For some positions, the job description will be highly specific, whereas other institutions (particularly high-profile research universities) may put out job advertisements that are more broadly worded in the hope of capturing top talent, regardless of the specific profile of the applicant. Most will fall somewhere in between. Keep in mind that most job descriptions may not be entirely reflective of the wants of the search committee, so it may pay off to be aggressive with your initial selection. Apply to places where you are really willing to work, even if the description is not a perfect fit for you, but avoid putting too much work into positions that are a stretch and not your most preferred places (especially if the description is highly specific). Furthermore, if you are in doubt as to whether your application may be a reasonable fit, it is advisable to email the committee chair or listed contact person and ask them directly before you begin the application process.

1.4 ∣. The application cycle

Most institutions follow a roughly yearly hiring cycle. In the United States, job applications are posted during summer, with the volume of postings dropping precipitously after the beginning of September, and most deadlines occur throughout the fall and early winter. Selected applicants will typically be contacted 1–2 months after the application deadline for either remote (e.g., Skype) or on-campus interviews, with most remote interviews taking place before the winter break is over. Come the new year, January through March are prime time for campus visits, and the first offers will go out sometime in spring, with the negotiations likely stretching into late spring and early summer. Depending on the timeline of the hiring department, things may be sped up (e.g., if the position needs to start in the following fall). Indeed, some departments strategically accelerate their searches with the hopes of snagging their favored candidate before other institutions have a chance to present competing offers. Although some universities do contact unsuccessful applicants, typically in spring, many universities do not send any official notification. Once again, the cycle can be slightly different in Europe; for instance, most job applications and application periods in France are strictly restricted to December for the CNRS, and February-March for assistant professor positions.

2 ∣. APPLICATION MATERIALS

Once job postings have been selected, the first step involves submitting the application materials to the hiring department. For the majority of positions, the application package will include a cover letter, a curriculum vitae (CV), a research statement and, often, a teaching statement. Some institutions, including the University of California system, also require a diversity statement, and guidelines are available. In addition, you will be asked to provide 2–5 recommendation letters from past mentors, supervisors and/or collaborators; letters may be required at the time of submission or may be requested later in the application process, although in this case, you will likely need to provide contact details of your letter writers when you submit your materials. Many positions also require that you submit reprints of your publications. If you have a manuscript submitted or under review, it is a good strategy to provide it here so that the committee can appreciate it. The written application is the first opportunity to create an impression in the minds of the committee members. However, bear in mind that committees often receive hundreds of applications—plan to include all relevant information, but be concise and to the point. Usually, only one person of the committee will have fully reviewed your application and you need to help him/her advocate for your case to the rest of the committee. The importance of clarity cannot be overstated; poor writing, which prevents the committee members from understanding who you are and what you do, is a common mistake that will significantly affect your odds. Here again, the European system might differ and in France for instance, the application package always consists in an administrative form of your official application, your CV, the final report of your thesis committee and statement(s) on your past research achievements and future research plans. The report from your thesis committee comes here in place of the traditional letters requested in the United States.

2.1 ∣. Cover letter

Potentially the least important of all parts in the application package, the goal of the cover letter is to concisely present yourself as an applicant, highlight key aspects of your research contributions (only ideas, no details), and very briefly present your core research vision. You should be able to describe your research focus in a single sentence, so take time to craft the exact wording that captures the essence of your research plans. The letter in total should be no longer than one page. The first paragraph should include a quick introduction (“My name is Jamie and I'm writing response to your call, I work at University X, I'd like to work here, see the rest of my package”). Do not go into the details of your research project here—leave that for the research statement. The main goal in the remainder of the letter is to get people reading your materials to envision you as a colleague; therefore, it can be helpful to customize it a little to include 2–3 faculty members that would be a good fit to interact with. It is also very helpful to make direct, clear statements about what your main future research goal is so that the hiring committee has context before reading your remaining application materials. Listing the elements you included in your application package and pointing to a particular manuscript that you decided to add can also help the reviewer to read through your application more efficiently.

2.2 ∣. Curriculum vitae

The CV includes a list of your academic accomplishments, a list of your education (titles, institutions and date of award), publications, awards, conference presentations, teaching experience and outreach, among others. It is good to start with a biosketch-style introductory paragraph that states your interests and your position in the field. Resist the temptation to include everything you have ever done in this list—it is important to be comprehensive, but try to highlight items in order of relevance and do not pad your CV with irrelevant (albeit possibly impressive) information for the sake of adding length to the document. A good organizing list is as follows: biosketch, education, published papers, grants and awards, invited talks and posters, research experience, teaching experience, outreach and technical service (e.g., peer reviewing publications or membership on committees). One of your main goals is to highlight scientific productivity, primarily reflected in publications, honors or awards, fellowships, talks and posters. Grants and awards are very important, as they reflect your ability to write a research proposal and obtain funding. Make use of all opportunities to apply for travel awards, poster awards, and even minor or intra-departmental awards. In addition to these lists of accomplishments, it is useful to include a “recent abstracts” with most recent work, with the goal of providing evidence of a scientific trajectory. It is advisable to include publications in preparation—it will give committee members the opportunity to follow up with their progress during the recruitment process. Preprints (bioRxiv, etc.) are becoming more common and generally carry more weight than just “in preparation.” The inclusion of personal information (e.g., marital status and number of children) is a matter of personal preference, although it is uncommon in the United States and was discouraged by our faculty panel. European cultures can be different in that respect and it is advisable to inquire about the local habits.

2.3 ∣. Research statement

Research statements give readers a clear understanding of the important questions your research engages with, the contributions you have already made in your field, and where your research is going in the future. They are typically 3–4 pages single-spaced, but can also be strictly restricted to 2 pages in some institutions. The statement should foster excitement about your research goals and the program you envision creating. Highlight the ways in which your research is innovative, how it is positioned to answer questions that, until now, were considered unsolvable, and how you are uniquely qualified to jumpstart this line of research in a new institution. Generally, research statements will cover important work from your Ph.D. period, postdoctoral period, and describe what you will be doing in the future. Your statement should demonstrate both a broad conceptual understanding, as well as a mastery of the techniques used in your research. It is advisable to keep scientific jargon limited so that your statement is accessible to anyone in the department. In some cases, there may not be a strong narrative link between your PhD and postdoctoral research. This is okay, but there must be a coherent narrative between your current research and the research program you propose for the future. Do not underestimate the importance of detailing your plans for the future. Discussion of your future research program should constitute approximately 50% of your research statement and provide a vision of what you will be doing for the next 10 years. Provide a balance between big picture questions and specific details of how you will tackle them (think on the level of aims written for a grant, such as an NIH-R01). The faculty panel unanimously recommended the inclusion of explanatory figures (with figure legends) in the research statement. Figures are memorable and will help you and your application stand out. Figures should be clear and beautiful and can be used flexibly to communicate your conceptual framework, your techniques or your findings.

2.4 ∣. Teaching statement

A teaching statement is often, but not always, required as part of the application package. It tends to carry more weight at smaller colleges or universities that are more focused on teaching than on research. The teaching statement should be around 1 page long, with half the space devoted to teaching philosophy and experience, and the second half to courses that you would like to teach in the hiring institution. Teaching philosophy should be no longer than 2–3 sentences, explaining your approach to teaching or the reasons why you would enjoy this part of your job. For the experience part, include everything you have done: not just classes but also work as research assistant, mentoring, outreach, etc. The second part of the statement is a good opportunity for tailoring—look through the web page of the department and identify classes that are being offered that you could cover, and classes that you think would be interesting to offer but do not exist yet that you would be uniquely qualified to teach.

2.5 ∣. Recommendation letters

The recommendation letters are a very important part of the committee's evaluation. Bad recommendation letters are a common cause of failure. The recommendation letters will be addressed directly to the hiring department and you will get no chance to read them during the process. Your Ph.D. and any postdoctoral advisors must be included as referees. They are the people most familiar with your work and aptitudes and omitting them would be seen as a red flag. There is some latitude in whom to request the other recommendation letters from; you can ask past collaborators, professors, graduate committee members or anybody with whom you have had a good professional relationship in the past. It is appropriate to ask your recommenders to contact the committee chair to put in a good word for you before the formal application review, although we recommend reserving this request of your letter writers for only your top priority applications. The letter can be used strategically to drive home certain points you are making in your application. If there is something you would like highlighted, you can ask your letter writers to touch on specific strengths or themes. If you are applying to a school where teaching is required, your letter writer could mention your skill in mentoring research assistants or undergraduates. Applicants are often concerned about the burden they place on their letter writers, particularly if they are applying to many positions. Some participants in our roundtable discussion used letter management resources (e.g., Interfolio) where letter writers upload their confidential reference letters once and the applicant can manage the distribution of the letters to each school they are applying to. This system had positive reviews and was flexible in allowing submission of confidential letters as attachments or as a response to an email invitation (each letter is assigned a unique e-mail address that the applicant can provide in lieu of their mentor's direct email address); however, ultimately you will be constrained by the requests of the institution's call for applicants.

3 ∣. REMOTE (SKYPE OR PHONE) INTERVIEW

In recent years, the second step after the committee reviews application packages is a remote Skype or phone interview. This intermediate step between the initial application and the campus visit allows departments to sample and get a first impression from a higher number of candidates, typically 8–10 candidates. The selection committee will carry out the interview, typically led by the committee chair. It is OK to ask the committee chair for details in advance, such as who will be present for the interview, what the format is, if there are time limits, and whether or not to use slides (presented through screen share). Remote interviews range from the formal, with a set of fixed questions asked to each candidate, to the free-form. In some cases, you will be asked to prepare a small set of slides (probably 5–6) to guide the discussion. The committee members will have likely read your application materials once, or may have skimmed them before the interview, but will probably have not gone through your publications. In preparing for the interview, do not assume any specific expertise in your area or even that the research described in your application materials will be readily recalled. In this interview, you should start broad and narrow down to the details to guide the committee in understanding who you are and what your vision. You should be conscious of whom your audience is (i.e., what kind of department are you interviewing for and what their primary interests are). At this point, you really want to have identified potential collaborators in the department/university, but be honest—do not misrepresent yourself to accommodate what you think are the department needs. If you get the job you will be expected to follow through on your proposed research, and you want that to reflect who you are. Timing is essential—most often this interview will last 20–30 min, so budgeting time is important. Your introduction should take 2–3 min. This first impression is important, so practice it, polish it, tape yourself and review it.

The primary goal of the committee for this interview is to assess those parts of your identity that are difficult to ascertain from the application package. For example, how much of an independent thinker you are? What's your vision for the future? Can you articulate how your previous/future research contributions have made/will make a significant impact in your area? Differentiate yourself not only from your advisor but also from the rest of the scientific community. Demonstrate how unique and exciting your research is, and make an effort to convey your enthusiasm.

There are a number of common questions that can help you think through your pitch, and they may be asked outright during the interview. You should devote time to think about these; you do not necessarily want to have canned answers, but you must be able to have a clear, eloquent response. It is best to prepare and practice your short, concrete responses. A list of questions is found in Table 1. As discussed further in the next section, in most cases you should not be expecting questions about your personal life, but be prepared to redirect the discussion in case this happens.

TABLE 1.

Typical interview questions

What is your research project?

What is the most significant research discovery you have accomplished during your career?

What is the biggest challenge you faced as a postdoc?

What is your 5-year plan for your lab (in 5 min or less)?

What's the most important question in your field?

What are the experimental approaches you would use?

What makes you uniquely positioned to make inroads in your research area?

Where do you see the field in 5/10 years?

Where do you yourself in 5/10 years in terms of administrative service, teaching and research?

How do you differentiate yourself from others in the field?

Why do you want to join our institution?

Who would you like to collaborate/interact with at our institution?

What grants would you apply for to support your lab?

What courses might you want to teach (at smaller, teaching-oriented institutions).

Where else did you submit applications?

Do you have any questions for us?

In your preparation, you should also consider interview logistics. Pick a good location (e.g., book a conference room in the department), with good acoustics and high internet speed. Test that the connection is working perfectly. It is important to make a good impression, so make sure the interview will not be interrupted and that the committee is not distracted by other things. Dressing up like you would for an in-person interview may also help get you in a professional mindset for the interview. During the remote interview, you will be doing most of the talking and it may be difficult to get read on the committee's reactions, particularly if there is no video feed. Use your pauses, and do not be afraid to ask whether you should go into more detail. It is often a good idea to check that people are following half-way through your response.

Finally, be prepared to ask them a few questions of your own, for example, what is the timeline for the search. Steer away from asking concrete details about the appointment, for example, about start-up funds, salary and support. There will be time for this if you make it to the following round.

4 ∣. THE CAMPUS VISIT

Typically 1–2 months after the remote interview, the committee will have narrowed it down to the few candidates (2–5) that will be invited for a campus visit. You will travel to the campus and spend an intense 1–2 days interviewing, typically at the beginning of the year. Keep in mind that your interview starts from the moment you are picked up at the airport until you board your return plane. The standard campus visit will likely be composed of an open job talk, a follow-up chalk talk (often in the second day of your visit) and a multitude of individual meetings with faculty, the head of the department, possibly even the Dean of the college and sometimes a faculty equity advisor. You will need to give your 2–3 min introductory speech (your “elevator pitch”) on multiple occasions—prepare, practice and polish. Most of these meetings will be short (20–30 min), so the Big Picture is what matters. In some cases, you will have the chance to meet with students and postdocs (often over lunch). Do not underestimate the importance of these meetings, as students and postdocs will often be asked for feedback and therefore have a voice in who gets recruited. At night you can expect to be taken out for dinner with faculty, and sometimes for an informal coffee or maybe even beer or wine—do not let your guard down and assume you are under examination all the time. Be personable and enthusiastic—people need to get excited about you and your research. Even if you do not end up taking the job, you will interact with those people again during the course of your professional career—perhaps writing grants or papers as collaborators, or as reviewers—so use this as an opportunity to make a positive impression. You want people to envision you as a colleague. However, keep in mind that you are also interviewing them—do not hesitate to ask questions and ask what you need to learn during your visit: equipment needs, facilities, departmental support, graduate programs, tenure expectations, etc.

A somewhat sensitive issue is whether you want to disclose personal details. In the United States, interviewers are not allowed to ask, and you should not feel pressured to disclose any details. Such questions include (but are not limited to) whether you are married, what does your spouse do for a living, whether you have children or whether you have plans to have children. To be clear, such a line of questioning is illegal in the United States under the Civil Rights Act, Title VII, which prohibits discrimination in employment for age, disability, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion and sex or gender. Candidates should feel free to state they are not comfortable answering that type of question, state that such questioning is illegal, or ask the relevance of the question to the position. To some, volunteering this information is not a source of discomfort and may even help you connect with your potential colleagues. In essence, you should do what feels comfortable to you. Freely sharing personal details may be a matter of personality, though be aware that there are complex implicit or explicit attitudes that may affect how such information is received (Williams and Ceci, 2015, PNAS; Moss-Racusin et al., 2015, PNAS). During the roundtable discussion, some faculty members mentioned cases in which it was advantageous for the hiring department to know that their candidate had a “two-body problem,” meaning that their partner is also in academia and will potentially require a position as well. It is sometimes possible for institutions to accommodate “spousal hires” or facilitate placement in a neighboring institution. In some cases, research universities will have infrastructure in place (e.g., dual career programs) to facilitate double hires. Such arrangements can take time and, as such, there can be advantages of exploring these possibilities early in the process, particularly if they will factor strongly in the candidate's decision (discussed further in Final Negotiations—Section 6). That said, these discussions can also be initiated once you are selected as the search committee's top candidate.

Below are some specific details on how to approach the more important aspects of the visit.

1. Job Talk: Typically, a 45–60 min presentation of your past research, using a Powerpoint or similar presentation software to a varied audience of faculty members, postdocs, graduate students and undergraduates. For many, this will be the main focus of the campus visit. The general tips for how to prepare talks apply here (use your slides, do not have too many slides or too much or too little text, enunciate loudly and clearly, do not verbalize acronyms, practice, etc.). In addition, be prepared for your audience, and target your talk appropriately (i.e., Neuroscience and Psychology departments will have different sensibilities). This can be a little more difficult with mixed audiences, but try to find middle ground and cater to everyone. The talk should be layered: start with the big picture to bring your audience onboard and give context to your work, then dive into the details, and go back up to Big Picture ideas before finishing up. You should start by talking about the research that you have done, and specify what part of that will become your laboratory. It could be work from graduate school, your postdoc or both. It is better to keep it focused than to mention everything you have ever worked on—that is, trim appropriately to construct a coherent story that people will remember. This talk may be used as additional evidence of whether you can teach—are you communicating effectively? Make sure your talk clearly conveys where you will be heading in the future. If there is no opportunity for a chalk talk, then prepare a few slides at the end of the main talk to describe the 5–10 year plan for your laboratory.

2. Chalk talk: Sometimes as an immediate follow-up to the job talk, in some cases left for the second day of your visit, the chalk talk will be attended by the search committee members and, in some cases, by other faculty members from the department or related departments or open to all. To most people, this will be the most obscure and mysterious part of the campus visit, but you should be ready. If at all possible, try to attend other people's chalk talks. Ask if you can attend the ones at your institution (the rules change from institution to institution and even from department to department)—you do not want the first chalk talk you attend to be yours. These are some guidelines that may help you prepare your chalk talk:

   1. The format is slightly different than the job talk and may be slightly more idiosyncratic depending on the institution—feel free to ask the committee chair about the format of the chalk talk.
   2. Have a 2–3 min recap of your talk to get started and for people who did not make it (but not longer since some people did attend). Then, have an outline on the board to guide discussion and control timing.
   3. Generally expect to use few to no slides and be able to outline your plans and thoughts on a white/blackboard. Often you will be given the opportunity to draw on the board beforehand—use that time to write your outline. Alternatively, having diagrams (e.g., complicated anatomy) ready and drawing your plans on the board interactively can make a good impression.
   4. If you are given freedom on how to organize the talk, it helps having a template to follow. For example, you can lay out your 5 years/10 years/long-term plans; or write the Aims for your first major grant, such as an NIH-R01. In any case, be organized and have some structure ready.
   5. Be ambitious, but realistic. Nobody expects you to do everything—they want to see that you are thinking deeply about interesting things. Be authentic—do not propose what you think they want to hear, but really what you want to do.
   6. If you could do anything, what would it be (“pie-in-the-sky”)?
   7. Do not let questions derail you, stay in control and be aware of the time. You want to engage everybody, not just the person asking questions all the time. Practice with faculty members beforehand if possible.
   8. Do not be defensive—people will ask questions and attack you, but that's part of the evaluation. They want to see you think on your toes, so engage in a conversation. Remember—they are looking for a colleague that can engage in stimulating debates for the next few years to decades.
   9. Something that needs to come through is how much of an independent thinker you are—it is not easy to appreciate from the earlier parts of the interview process. How are you going to differentiate yourself from your PI is an important point, and you should discuss this with him/her before leaving the laboratory.
   10. Do not use “we,” but “I” when presenting your ideas for the future.

3. One-on-one meetings: 20–30 min long individual meetings with primary and affiliated faculty in the department. As with every other aspect of the visit, it is important to be ready—at the very least be informed about what your interviewer is working on, but it is even better if you have more information about their background and current laboratory. In order to prepare, you can request your itinerary a few days ahead of time if it has not already been provided to you. If there is not much overlap in research interests, keep the conversation general—that is, “what's the most exciting development in your field right now?” If there is significant overlap, consider this as an opportunity to explore possibilities for intellectual interaction and perhaps even collaboration. One of these meetings may be with the Dean, who is likely to be concerned about some of the more practical aspects of your recruitment: they will want to gauge how likely you are to take the offer, how much money they will need to bring you in, etc. You should be able to answer questions regarding what type of laboratory space and resources you will need, so it is very useful to be aware of shared resources (i.e., core facilities) on campus that you could take advantage of. Occasionally people will have “informal” conversations about ballpark figures for start-up. It will be helpful to have a very general sense of how much start-up recent assistant professors have received with similar research needs to your own. Your advisor may be able to help you determine your needs.

5 ∣. FINAL NEGOTIATIONS

Congratulations—you have been offered the position, making good on all your efforts to get this far! The last part of the process involves negotiating the details of your appointment. It is likely that many of these details of your appointment have been made clear to you during the campus visit, but this will be the first time you are presented with some others and the first opportunity for you to make specific demands. Something important to realize at this point, which may be hard after a grueling selection process involving hundreds of candidates, is that you have leverage. You have been identified as the best fit for the position, and reaching consensus on such an important decision is often not trivial. In other words, if you reject the offer the search may fail, which the department will strongly want to avoid. If you have multiple offers from different institutions you are in a very strong position: sharing any other offers may help a lot and give you solid ground for some of the negotiations (e.g., start-up funds and salary offer). Note, this is another benefit of applying aggressively—the opportunity to leverage multiple offers. Let institutions know, when interviewing, if you are interviewing at or have offers from other places. Stalling for time is OK as long as you are reasonable throughout the process, and it may pay off if you get a second letter. In some European institutions, salary and start-up might be governmentally regulated, and universities might not have so much freedom in setting these, but there may be some leeway in the grade at which you are hired and which facilities you need access to.

Generally, your job during this final part of the hiring process is to make sure that you will have the resources that you need to succeed, which is also what the department wants for you. Make sure you communicate clearly—they cannot read your mind and sometimes your needs and requests are not aligned with theirs. This is an important point—it will be very useful to identify what items are essential/negotiable/not important to you and to the department. For example, they may need you to start the following ‘so you can teach a specific class, whereas the exact time may not be important to you—a nice opportunity to cede in this aspect of the negotiation. Do not play games—be honest, but be stubborn with what you need to succeed. The basic axes of the negotiation can be thought of as:

5.1 ∣. Money: salary and start-up

For salary, it is often useful to come with a prior budget. Note that state universities have public salary figures that you can typically find online and this can be useful to gauge what standard salaries are for faculty in the department you are applying to. There may be not much room for negotiating salary, but often there are other salary components (e.g., decoupled salary) that can add a few extra thousand dollars on top of the base. A critical distinction here is what proportion of the appointment is “hard money,” that is, guaranteed to you regardless of your funding situation. Often this distinction is referred to in terms of the FTE (Full-Time Employment), which can range from 0% (i.e., a “soft money” position, where you need to bring in grants to pay your salary) to 100% (a “hard money” position, obviously the more desirable options). Mixed positions are available (e.g., 50%). The type of position will partially depend on the hiring department (e.g., clinical departments in medical schools tend to have more soft money positions). There is likely not a lot of flexibility here, and the type of position will be made clear to you early on (perhaps even in the job listing), but you need to understand how it will impact you. Soft money positions will often have fewer requirements (i.e., smaller teaching load). Often times, the department will guarantee your full salary for a number of years (typically 3–5), giving you time to put in your grants and get funding to support yourself. A second important point is whether you will be on academic (9 months) or calendar (12 months) salary. An academic salary can be supplemented for the summer months, effectively raising the base figure by 33% provided you have the grant funds to support that expense. Summer support (e.g., for 2–3 months) is often included in initial offers and can be negotiated. For 12-month appointments, the base salary is already the yearly figure.

The start-up will be a lump sum of money that you will use to get your laboratory ready and to run it for the first few years. Start-ups can vary widely depending on your needs and the resources of the department, but are typically in the $0.5–1.5 M range. Start-ups are usually in the lower range for clinical, vs. basic research, departments. The best thing to do is to figure out the minimum that you need to succeed. Talk to your mentor to generate a list of equipment, supplies and salaries that you will need. It is ok to give an inflated, but justified, number—this will help you negotiate. Generally, people generate spreadsheets delineating their costs for 2–3 years. Use your academic network to request examples from recent hires in your field. Most colleagues will be excited to hear about your success on the market and will be happy to help you. There is evidence of gender disparity in the magnitude of start-up packages in biomedical sciences, so having concrete examples of what others have successfully negotiated can be useful (Sege et al., 2012, JAMA). Take into account other expenses: remodeling can be expensive, animal costs, overhead. Personnel is also expensive, but necessary. At major research institutions, it is common to request support for one postdoc, one graduate student and one research technician for three years. Some universities have time limits on start-up funds, meaning that they must be used within a given time window (typically 2–3 years). Do everything you can to make sure your start-up does not expire—having unrestricted funds allows for flexibility and is highly valuable. You may be able to use the funds in the future to buffer low funding times, etc.

5.2 ∣. Time

The primary thing to consider here is what commitments you will have beyond directing your research laboratory. Of primary importance is the required teaching load. This will vary depending on the institution and the terms of your appointment, from no load to 3–4 courses per year. Do not underestimate the amount of time you will need to devote to preparing courses. Get a clear answer on when you need to start teaching. An additional item for negotiation is your start date: sometimes it is good to delay for a year or so to get enough data for an R01 submission, or get the renovations you need to be done before moving and personal considerations will likely play a role, too. Have that conversation with your mentor, who would likely be paying you to collect data for your own laboratory.

5.3 ∣. Space

Office, laboratory and bench space, desk space for students/postdocs, freezer space, etc. Have a clear idea of exactly how much space you need and know the square footage—have a specific figure in mind (e.g., 600 sq. ft.) and do not hesitate to use a measuring tape to know exactly how much that is. Space can be standard, for example, UC Berkeley offers 1,200 sq.ft. plus office space to new recruits, but this will vary a lot from university to university. Look at floor plans, both what you are being offered and, if possible, from recent hires and friends at other institutions.

5.4 ∣. Other aspects of the negotiation

Housing: Some universities, especially in high-income areas, will provide access to university housing. In other places, you will receive mortgage assistance or even a house bonus to help you buy a house, which can be substantial (~$100k). This will vary widely according to the location and resources of the school. In addition, some places will offer relocation assistance, paying for all or part of your moving expenses. It is also possible to negotiate funds for a second visit to the institution or a house-hunting trip.

If a two-body problem is a deciding factor, let them know as soon as you have an offer if you have not already. If your significant other is in the same discipline as yourself, a double hire may be an option. Cross-departmental dual hires are often more difficult, but most places will make an effort, at least in the United States. Some universities have infrastructure in place (e.g., a dual career office)—make sure you know of and use it.

6 ∣. CONCLUSION

Here, we have distilled the main pieces of advice from experienced faculty members at UC Berkeley in an organized way that provides a certain amount of guidance on what to expect from and how to approach the search for an independent faculty position. Although the advice contained here was related mainly to a specific discipline (neuroscience) in an American university, we hope some of these insights are valuable to young investigators across the world. As a complement to the roundtable question-and-answer discussion sessions, we organized a seminar series where postdocs about to go on the market could present their job talks, practice and obtain feedback from researchers from other laboratories. We encourage other institutions to support similar initiatives to provide graduate students and postdocs with guidance in this otherwise opaque and mysterious, but often essential, process.