Thursday, August 09, 2007

Theorists who got jobs for fall07-where?



Aravind Srinivasan: I have a great idea for a Blog Post!

Bill Gasarch: What is it!

Aravind Srinivasan: We all know where Scott Aaronson ended up- MIT, but where did the other theorists on the market end up!?

Bill Gasarch: Living in a cardboard box with a sign saying ``will prove theorems for food'' !?

Aravind Srinivasan: No, thats for Math PhD's! The blog should ASK theorists who got a job in Fall 2007 to tell us where they got their jobs so we'll all know!

Bill Gasarch: Okay, I'll do it!
if you are a theorist who got a job starting in Fall 2007, please leave a comment telling us where it is and anything else you want to add about the job market, or life, or whether pi should be 2*pi, or anything else you care to expouse on.

44 comments:

  1. I am starting at SUNY Buffalo this fall.

    --Atri Rudra

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a communication problem, so why not use the "number on the forehead" model?

    Subhash Khot -> NYU
    David Woodruff -> IBM Almaden
    Vitaly Feldman -> IBM Almaden
    Julia Chuzhoy -> TTI, Chicago
    Jason Hartline -> Northwestern
    Nicole Immorlica -> Northwestern

    ReplyDelete
  3. pi should be 2.71828182845904523536...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Two more:
    abhi shelat --> University of Virginia
    Hoeteck Wee --> Columbia University (postdoc)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nir Ailon -> Google

    ReplyDelete
  6. bill, you are fairly accurate in what you have attributed to me, but not in the slander of Math PhDs :)

    aravind

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sean Hallgren -> Penn State

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's amazing how bad the job market is, with people going to places that are much below what their deserve!

    ReplyDelete
  9. To the contrary, I am very heartened to see theorists getting these many positions (perhaps more that will be posted here soon) in good places. It's a safe bet that this list is comparable to any other field of CS for this year's hiring.

    aravind

    ReplyDelete
  10. Following up on my previous post, I also suggest to the prior anon-poster to take a broader view of what makes a place "good" etc. A few great hires can be transformational -- see, e.g., the GATech theory group! Similarly, Courant has always been very strong in theory, but more in algorithms than in complexity -- with Naor and Khot there now, we can probably expect very good things to happen. Similarly, I am very glad to see two strong algorithmic-GT folks go to NWU .. aravind

    ReplyDelete
  11. A bunch of theorists joined Microsoft Research Theory group as postdocs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. who? give us a list! (interesting post)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Following up on my previous post, I also suggest to the prior anon-poster to take a broader view of what makes a place "good" etc. A few great hires can be transformational -- see, e.g., the GATech theory group!

    What makes a place good is not just your colleagues but also the quality of students that you will get to work with. Granted that a few good hires will ensure a really strong faculty, but will it drastically change the quality of students that they are going to get? GATech is a non-example because they get good students anyway. Those excellent hires just made their department stronger and ensured that these students had faculty members to work with.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Outside North America:

    Harald Racke -> Warwick
    Rahul Santhanam -> Edinburgh
    Amin Coja-Oghlan -> Edinburgh

    Postdocs:

    Satyen Kale -> Microsoft Research
    Yuri Makarychev -> MS Research
    Anup Rao -> IAS
    Sergey Yekhanin -> IAS
    Adi Akavia -> IAS
    Nikhil Devanur -> TTI, Chicago
    Emanuele Viola -> Columbia
    Andrej Bogdanov -> Tsinghua

    ReplyDelete
  15. Konstantin Makarychev -> IBM TJ Watson

    ReplyDelete
  16. Xi Chen --> IAS (postdoc)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Aranyak Mehta -> Google Research

    ReplyDelete
  18. Google Research

    What is "Google Research"? Isn't that just good ol'Google? Or did they start a research division (meaning, people there will actually publish)?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ryan Williams -> Carnegie Mellon (postdoc)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon#18: Maybe you should try googling up "Google research".

    ReplyDelete
  21. Lance Fortnow -> Northwestern

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon #20:

    The best information seems to be at http://research.google.com, but it hardly says anything. My guess is that "Google Research" is not in fact a separate organization within Google, but is just a web site meant to advertise the papers published by Google employees. However, I can't be sure based on this vague web site. Am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fortnow to Northwestern? Unless the Wildcats drove a dumptruck full of money up to his house, I find it awfully hard to believe. Is there anything to back this up???

    ReplyDelete
  24. How about a symmetric post: who is going to be on the job market next year?

    ReplyDelete
  25. ...who is going to be on the job market next year?

    Didn't you know? Everyone's always on the job market, it's just a matter of how actively they are looking. =)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Irit Dinur --> Weizmann

    ReplyDelete
  27. The comment about "Google Research" is funny. It may not match your definition of a research group, but the group definitely exists. It's definitely not a place to hide and do complexity.

    ReplyDelete
  28. theory grad student, sorta1:04 AM, August 14, 2007

    Thanks for the post! Given that the number of positions appear to be shrinking each year, I think we should as a community maintain some awareness of whether everyone graduating who wants to stay in research does manage to do so.

    It seems like we have fairly comprehensive coverage of the Princeton graduates and Microsoft post-doc/staff. How about the Harvard graduates, the Stanford graduates and the Israeli cryptographers?

    It'd also be interesting to get tallies of other kinds, e.g.

    -- How many people ended up joining google as developers/software engineers or hedge funds? I'm aware of two in each of the two categories, three of whom had definitely done some very very nice work in grad school.

    -- Which places apart from the usual suspects of Microsoft, IBM, TTI and IAS ended up offering post-doc positions? Were there many such positions?

    ReplyDelete
  29. theory grad student, sorta1:13 AM, August 14, 2007

    p.s.: cornell folks are glaringly unaccounted for!

    ReplyDelete
  30. (unconfirmed)

    Danny Harnik -> CWI (postdoc)
    Enav Weinreb -> CWI (postdoc)
    Benny Applebaum -> Princeton (postdoc)

    Shien Jin Ong -> finance (by choice)

    Hovav Shacham -> UCSD

    What other Stanford/Harvard students were there?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "cornell folks are glaringly unaccounted for!"

    I am always annoyed by such stupid comments. There are several great students in other universities (with 4-5 STOC/FOCS papers by the time of graduation, if this is your metric) that are unaccounted for also.

    ReplyDelete
  32. theory grad student, sorta4:00 PM, August 14, 2007

    I think my comment about cornell folks was misinterpreted at two levels:

    first, I was just picking a school from which I'm guessing quite a few students should be on the post-doc or permanent job market this year (e.g. look up Kleinberg's list of students).

    second, I was pointing an omission, that's glaring only because of the number of people that'd fit the criterion (which in this case, is a grouping by school). I wasn't saying everyone else whom I didn't point out as having been omitted are unimportant.

    In fact, I also agree that "several great students in other universities that are unaccounted for also". I'm omitting the quantification in parentheses because that isn't my metric. That said, I wasn't about to start listing individuals.

    It's unfortunate that the remark was misinterpreted from such a myopic perspective.

    As written earlier, part of my motivation for asking is to understand whether "everyone graduating who wants to stay in research does manage to do so".

    ReplyDelete
  33. theory grad student, sorta4:03 PM, August 14, 2007

    p.s. I looked over my comment and realized there were a few dangling references:

    1. the quantification in parentheses refers to anon #31's quantification on number of FOCS/STOC papers.

    2. the remark (second last line) refers to my earlier p.s. note about cornell folks.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Robert Krauthgamer -> Weizmann

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well, "theory grad student, sorta", it's you who brought up this silly grouping by school. We're interested in theory as a discipline here, rather than in these absurd clannish divisions.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ...part of my motivation for asking is to understand whether "everyone graduating who wants to stay in research does manage to do so".

    Having just had a student who graduated and will be going to industry, I don't think raw statistics will give you the answer you are looking for. (Instead, you will need to speak to people individually.) In my student's case, he had offers from low-ranked academic institutions, but decided that an industry (non-research) job would be more fulfilling. (He's probably right.) Does this count as someone who "wanted to stay in research but couldn't"? Or does this count as someone who looked at research life at a non-top university, and made a conscious decision that it was not what he wanted?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sadly, I see that another brilliant young theoretical computer scientist has also been glaringly unaccounted for in this discussion. If you know who I am talking about, please be sure to give us an update on this person.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Chiu Yuen Koo -> Google

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Vladimir Trifonov -> UIC (postdoc in math)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Since the STOC/FOCS metric was bad-mouthed here, can you please explain how exactly do you define "brilliant"?

    Some people listed here have very few publications. So what's the metric? How long can you be very promising without publishing??

    ReplyDelete
  42. The STOC/FOCS metric was discussed ad nauseum in a prior thread, and it was generally agreed upon that it does not measure brilliance unless one calibrates against sexual magnetism. The point being that anyone can write many STOC/FOCS papers if that's all they spend their time doing.

    This led to the introduction of the L-index: Your L-index is at least k if you have k papers such that during the writing of each paper, you went on at least k dates.

    This resulted in the first ever accurate comparison of Mihai Patrascu and his advisor Erik Demaine whose L-indexes are 18 and 2, respectively.

    ReplyDelete
  43. To anon 42: Please write more! I am dying to know everyone's L-index. What is yours?

    ReplyDelete
  44. okay, i know im real late but i havent read this in a while. i really like comments #21 and #23, though i guess its only in retrospect since i read Lance's later post which confirmed comment #21 first. also, i really like comment #42, and as a result, agree with #43 (to some degree). too bad i cant add anything of substance.

    ReplyDelete