1 / 15

The 2011 External Review Chair Daniel M. Neumark

The 2011 External Review Chair Daniel M. Neumark. Reviewers. Carl Lineberger , University of Colorado John Tully, Yale Laura Kiessling , University of Wisconsin Larry Overman , UC Irvine Louis Brus , Columbia. Process.

drago
Télécharger la présentation

The 2011 External Review Chair Daniel M. Neumark

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The 2011 External Review Chair Daniel M. Neumark

  2. Reviewers • Carl Lineberger, University of Colorado • John Tully, Yale • Laura Kiessling, University of Wisconsin • Larry Overman, UC Irvine • Louis Brus, Columbia

  3. Process • Self study put together by three teams, covering faculty hiring needs, space and infrastructure, graduate and undergraduate education • Reviewers write and submit report • Chair writes response to the report • Now we wait….

  4. NRC Chemistry Rankings How do we stay at the top?

  5. My goals as Chair • Recruit aggressively at the junior and senior level • Two appointments/year needed just to maintain pace with retirements • Effective mentoring for junior faculty already here • Administrative efficiency: prompt processing of merit and promotion cases • Work with Dean Mathies to improve infrastructure

  6. Faculty Demographics

  7. Faculty Demographics Age distribution by interest group. Blue is total, Red is FTE’s Chemical Biology 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Organic 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+

  8. Faculty Demographics Inorganic 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Physical (exp+ theory) 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+

  9. Faculty FTE Trends Goal is to make two hires/per year for next few years Mix of junior (preferred) and senior positions

  10. Opportunities • Energy science: large LBL investment in solar-to-fuels (Helios, JCAP) opens up opportunities in many areas of chemistry • Campus/LBL EFRC’s in carbon capture and storage • Retirement of nuclear chemists provides opportunity to hire in new but related fields of chemistry (environmental, analytical) • Calvin lab becoming available- opens up possibility for multidisciplinary effort involving Chemistry and Biology • Next Generation Light Source (NGLS) at LBL will require faculty hires in ultrafast x-ray science

  11. Resources and FTE’s • Since July 1, 2010, four new assistant professors hired (Ginsberg, Cuk, Savage, Fischer), one full professor (Hartwig), one adjunct professor (Baranger), one pending offer (Yaghi) • Only Ginsberg and Fischer received significant campus research support • LBL provided all startup funds for Cuk and Hartwig • EBI provided startup funds for Savage • While this type of leveraging is fine (and necessary, for senior appointments), it focuses our hiring more toward needs of institutions other than Chemistry- possibly harmful in the long term • Campus should provide bulk of funds for junior hires, to be supplemented by LBL, etc, as necessary

  12. Space and infrastructure issues • Our research space suffers in comparison to our peer institutions • Ongoing retention issue • Without better space, it will be very difficult to meet recruiting goals • Space that is adequate for someone already here will not be adequate for new faculty • Retirements of faculty based on LBL puts further pressure on campus space • Undergraduate laboratories in poor shape- experienced by a large fraction of Berkeley students

  13. College of Chemistry Building Condition

  14. Space and research issues: • Physical Chemistry: temperature and humidity control for laser labs on D-level of Latimer and Hildebrand is done on ad hoc basis. Modern HVAC needed. • Inorganic Chemistry: Several groups do not have contiguous space, and some have labs in more than one building • Organic Chemistry: Wide variation in quality of lab space, depending on building (i.e. Tan better than Latimer). Generally perceived as inferior to peer institutions. NMR facility needs to be modernized • Theory: Inadequate computer infrastructure. Will be addressed by move to campus facility with support from Pitzer Foundation • Chem Bio: New hiring in this area depends on retaining QB3 space currently occupied by Marletta and Klinman. No policy in place on this issue.

  15. Building issues • Lewis Hall: decision needs to be made to either replace it or invest heavily in renovation • Stanley Hall: New building housing QB3. Many ChemBio faculty housed there, but no guarantees that space will remain available to us • Calvin Lab will be vacated by EBI soon. Lab space there suitable for chemistry and/or biology research. Various plans currently under discussion • Gilman Hall has significant underutilized space suitable for instruction, administration and dry science if it can be mitigated and renovated

More Related