Faculty positions
There is great pressure within the department to make new faculty hires.
Recent resignations (Wijers, Aleiner, Schaefer, Orozco) and retirement
(Kahn) add to our need to move forward.
The University is in sufficient budget distress that it is clear that
a) getting new searches approved for next year will be very hard
b) any special arguments we can make are welcome – and the
argument that we lost faculty in the past two years will not by itself
carry the day, as all departments are trouble, and need to reduce
budgets.
c) leveraging new appointments with non-university funds is
an important ingredient.
The two positions for which offers are out (M. Aronson, CM experiment and
N. Pietralla, nuclear experiment) both had special arguments that enabled
the administration to approve. We are essentially unique in CAS in getting
these positions this year.
What I seek in this meeting:
I expect that circumstances in the university will change rapidly – generally the
prospect for new hires next year is dim. The advice given to CAS is 14% cut
from June 2002 over the academic years 2002-4. However, we don’t have a
budget from Albany/SUNY Central yet and thus the reaction of the local campus
is not yet firm.
This year, the advice to the campus has worsened over time but we have seen
some minor openings that if we know what we want to do, could be exploited.
I would like to have the advice from the department on what our most urgent
needs are – not in the sense of a formal report as in the LRP, but more
individually. The idea is that I would like to have the sense of the department so
as to be able to move rapidly as conditions evolve.
I assume that the advice will often be prefaced by ‘the most pressing need is to
hire in my own area’ . That is fine, but what I really need is a more global look at
the department’s needs, and I will especially value your outlook on the needs in
other areas than your own.
Advice can come publicly in this meeting or privately later, after more thought
and consultation with your colleagues. (I apologize in advance for this meeting
not including the full faculty! )
Positions to consider:
1.
Astrophysics †
2.
Atomic Molecular Optical Physics †
3.
Biological physics *
4.
Condensed Matter Theory †
5.
Instrumental astronomy *
6.
Nanofabrication/ devices
7.
Nuclear theory †
8.
Spin nuclear/particle physics *
Positions in nuclear experiment and condensed matter experiment were
advocated in the LRP, and offers are now out
† == Resignations
* == From Long Range Plan report spring 2002
Order is alphabetical ! No sense of priority intended.
2001-2 LRP Committee recommendations:
(no priority given):

Applying Physics to Biology

Condensed matter experimental physics of materials [offer out]

Spin Physics from RHIC [search made, no offer]

New astronomical research (instrumentation)

Low energy nuclear physics
[offer out]
Also mentioned as desireable: nuclear theory, nuclear astrophysics, high
energy physics, condensed matter nanoelectronics, accelerator physics,
high intensity laser physics
1999 LRP Committee recommendations: (in priority order)

atomic, molecular and optical physics [T. Weinacht hired]

high energy physics/neutrinos [C. McGrew hired]

astronomy instrumentation

physics of biology

experimental mesoscopic physics
There are many factors that would influence our choice of new hires:
 How many hires can we make? On what timescale?
 What does the startup cost?
 Is there leveraging from outside funds? (BNL, grant, … )
 Special resources here to retain a new hire
 Will new hire encourage a current faculty member to stay?
 What level should the appointment be?
 Curriculum pressure
 Graduate student demand
 Grant income generated
 Preserving existing strengths of department
 Possibilities for new initiatives for research
How we proceed will depend on some mix of these factors, and on the external
circumstances. The importance of the factors will probably be time-dependent, so
getting LRP-type advice with a static outlook is probably not appropriate.
Some statistics:
RF approximate expenditures by group (taken from AY 2001-2)
Group
# in group
Tot RF ( K$)
IDC (K$)
K$/faculty
Astronomy
9
1103
284
123
CM Theory
3
951
233
317
CM Expt
5
460
82
92
Atmospheric
1
135
35
135
AMO
4
749
144
187
CM devices
3
2850
795
950
Nuc theory
6
1064
345
177
Nuc expt
3
824
156
275
Heavy Ion
3
714
108
238
X ray
2
569
141
285
HE expt
8
2465
397
308
Some statistics:
Ph.D. research grad students by group
Group
# in group
#students
stud/fac.
Astr. Observing
7
5
0.7
Astr. Theory
1.5
3
2
CM Theory
3
4
1.3
CM Expt
5
5
1
AMO
4
15
3.8
CM devices
3
13
4.3
Nuc theory
5.5
8
1.5
Nuc expt
3
5
1.7
Heavy Ion
3
7
2.3
X ray
2
7
3.5
HE expt
8
13
1.6
ITP
10
14
1.4
Some statistics:
Grad students by group outside Department
Group
#students
Accelerator(Peggs/BenZvi)
4
AMO (DiMauro)
5
Biophysics(Dilmanian, Reinstein et al.)
8
Chemistry(Stell)
1
CM Theory (Davenport, Essler)
3
The case for hires in the several areas:
(my own take … amendments welcome!)
AMO
Faculty is down to 2.5 + 1 research with departure of L. Orozco and P.
Koch to Associate Dean.
a)
Course pressure: we have several courses that should be taught
by AMO faculty: Lasers, Graduate 566 and 567, Optics Rotation,
Sr. Lab, Grad Seminar. Current faculty don’t quite go around.
b)
AMO is a very active field of physics research
c)
High demand of students (20 current students in AMO PhD
research)
d)
Desire to retain national position after Orozco departure, send
signal that Stony Brook remains in the business
e)
Cost of start-ups is large
Astronomy
One could argue that two hires are desired – refill the Wijers position, and
the hire recommended by the Long Range Plan. The priorities within the
Astronomy Group are still being discussed.
a)
Course pressure: to maintain the AST undergrad major, the set of
popular DEC courses, the graduate offerings, and Sr. Lab, we are often
short astronomy faculty, particularly when one or more is on leave.
b)
LAMA initiative: LAMA has made progress in the past year, with a
funded phase I, collaboration with Columbia and American Museum of
Natural History, and renewed efforts for major donations, plan for
building LAMA at Apache Point NM (SDSS) site. Progress raises
pressure for instrumental astronomy hire.
c)
SMARTS consortium telescopes, success in getting Keck, Spanish radio
telescope, Hubble time gives improved Stony Brook telescope time.
d)
Discoveries in astronomy and cosmology are high profile in science and
the public.
e)
Expect the start up cost for an astronomy hire to be rather small, but
for the instrumentation position there will be significant needs.
f)
Student pressure is not high in observational astronomy
Biological Physics:
Stony Brook has had a very high profile in the area of X-ray optics and its
applications for some time. Two long range planning committees have
advocated modest expansion here.
Last LRP report identified areas: protein structure using electron/X-ray
microscopy at BNL/SB; meaning of genome sequences; computational
neuroscience.
a)
Good funding record
b)
High student pressure
c)
Small but highly visible group
d)
Biological physics is clearly a growth field in physics nationally and will be
well supported.
e)
Environmental applications are important socially
f)
Cost of start up is probably moderately high
This position is special as it probably represents a new direction for the
department, rather than building within an existing group --- but there
will be affinities to the current X-ray group, or perhaps aspects of
condensed matter.
Condensed Matter Theory:
We lost Igor Aleiner. Previous losses (Kivelson, Chakravarty, Hwa,
Jain) have been difficult for the department. CM theory has
generally appeared on LRP reports when the size of the faculty
dipped to the current three .
A major and very diverse area of physics that is at the core of most
university departments. New subfields of CM appear regularly
and need theoretical development.
a)
Funding is moderate
b)
Our graduate students have not flocked to CM theory; do we
understand this? (4 supported by SB faculty; 3 to outside
theorists. Though some students working on nanodevices, microelectronics are effectively doing theory.)
d)
Cost of start up is relatively small
Microelectronics, Nanofabrication:
This area was not on the prime list in the past LRP, but is advocated
because of special expertise now in place at Stony Brook upon
which we could capitalize. (Nanofabrication labs of Jim Lukens)
a)
Stony Brook effort is well recognized nationally
b)
General area of nanotechnology is growing, with new opportunities
c)
Funding possibilities are excellent; our largest area of support
d)
Student pressure is high
e)
We have invested in considerable infrastructure in
nanofabrication in past; there is an opportunity to exploit this.
f)
Cost of start up will be reasonably large, though we may hope that
existing infrastructure can partially offset.
Nuclear Theory:
Stony Brook has a long history of nationally recognized strength in
nuclear theory. The group has influenced several major
aspects of nuclear physics – heavy ions, supernovae, nonperturbative QCD, random matrix theory …
Resignation of Thomas Schaefer, loss of state funded research
appointment
Group is relatively large – five academic faculty and one research
professor. There is an active and productive interplay within
the group, and with nuclear/RHI experiment.
a)
Expect BNL RIKEN joint appointment for duration of
assistant professor appointment; thus near term cost is small.
b)
Research funding has been strong
c)
Start up costs small
d)
Student pressure is moderate
RHIC Spin physics:
RHIC is now accelerating polarized protons in addition to heavy ions.
The two programs are rather distinct, but both use the PHENIX
detector. The polarized program aims to understand what carries
the nucleon spin – the gluon, or quark orbital angular momentum
effects. We expect RHIC spin program to go on for perhaps 8
years, with possible further related effort using e-p/e-A
collisions. RHIC spin program is about equidistant between
particle physics and heavy ion physics.
a)
LRP argument to add a new faculty to capitalize on the spin
program and to develop leadership in this field.
b)
Expect BNL RIKEN joint appointment for first five years, so
salary cost is low.
c)
There is a prospect for significant new grant income (via MoU
from BNL RIKEN) for new PHENIX silicon detector fabrication
(~$1M). To get this, need to hire soon.
d)
Start up costs relatively small due to the existing infrastructure
in the existing PHENIX group.