High-Energy Theory Postdoc Deadline Accord

View project on GitHub

``The High-Energy Theory Postdoc Deadline Accord, described below, is now in effect, starting with the coming hiring season with a deadline of February 15th 2024. As of September 30, 2023, over 181 groups have agreed to abide by the February 15th accord, including 85% of the groups that signed the January 7th accord. For questions, corrections, or additions to this list please contact het.postdoc.deadline [at] gmail [dot] com.


  1. Accord
  2. Signatories
  3. Frequently Asked Questions


Since 2007, the high-energy physics theory community has adopted an agreement in which institutions have pledged to set a common postdoc acceptance deadline. This agreement has been critical for establishing a standard of equity and fairness in hiring and recruiting practices, allowing several generations of postdocs to make life and career decisions with the maximum amount of information at their disposal.

Any fixed date for a common deadline is a compromise between advantages and disadvantages. A broadly distributed survey, reported in this arXiv submission, shows that the community now favors a substantially later date than previously agreed upon. This accord therefore amends the original agreement, changing the common acceptance deadline from January 7th to February 15th. If your research group wishes to affirm this new accord, please email het.postdoc.deadline [at] gmail [dot] com with your name and that of the research group you represent.


Signatories of this accord hereby agree to the following:

  1. The signatory, on behalf of their research group, agrees to make no postdoctoral offer whose acceptance deadline is earlier than February 15th for a position which starts later that calendar year.
  2. The accord will be signed by the current head of the research group or a representative thereof, on behalf of the research group as a whole. It is understood that the signature remains valid if the group leadership rotates to somebody else, unless the signature is withdrawn explicitly.
  3. To ensure community unity, the new accord will only take effect once both of the following conditions are satisfied:
    • At least 65 of the signatories of the existing January 7th accord (∼70%) have signed on to this new accord.
    • A total of at least 100 research groups have signed on to the new accord. This exceeds the number of signatories of the previous accord.
    • Moreover, for the accord to apply to the 2023-2024 hiring cycle, both criteria must be met on or before September 30th 2023. If the criteria are instead met between October 1th 2023 and June 30th 2024, this accord will go in effect for the 2024-2025 hiring cycle. If the criteria are not satisfied before June 30th 2024, this accord and all its signatures are to be considered null and void. The existing January 7th accord will remain in force until the new accord is ratified. This webpage will be kept up to date with the current list, and all signatories will be notified by e-mail when the new accord is either ratified or has failed to gather enough signatures by the deadlines above.
  4. Once ratified, the new February 15th accord will supersede the January 7th accord for those institutions who have signed both accords. The new February 15th accord will remain active until a similar accord has been signed to replace it.
  5. The accord does not apply to multidisciplinary fellowships whose timing is outside the control of individual research groups, such as e.g. the Marie Curie and other institutional fellowships.

back to top


Institutions along with communicating representative(s)

Last update: November 5, 2023

  1. Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP) — Lars Bildsten
  2. Laval University Theory Group — Jean-François Fortin
  3. University of Maryland particle theory group — Raman Sundrum
  4. Cambridge University theoretical particle physics group — Ben Allanach
  5. Nikhef Theory Group — Robert Fleischer
  6. University of Oregon — Graham Kribs
  7. Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) — Juan Maldacena
  8. University of Washington — Laurence G. Yaffe
  9. Fermilab Theory Division — Marcela Carena
  10. SLAC Particle Theory Group — Tom Rizzo
  11. University of Melbourne, Theoretical Particle Physics Group — Nicole Bell
  12. The Weizmann Institute — Ofer Aharony
  13. Jozef Stefan Institute — Jernej Fesel-Kamenik
  14. University of Ljubljana — Jernej Fesel-Kamenik
  15. Johns Hopkins Theory Group — Surjeet Rajendran
  16. University of California Irvine — Tim Tait
  17. Brandeis High Energy Theory Group — Matthew Headrick
  18. University of Hawaii Theory Group — Jason Kumar
  19. Monash University — Ulrik Egede
  20. University of Toronto THEP — David Curtin
  21. Cornell University Theory Group — Csaba Csaki and Liam McAllister
  22. University of Utah HET Group — Paolo Gondolo
  23. Queen’s University — Joseph Bramante
  24. Henan University, P. R. China, Mathematical Physics and High-Energy Theory group at the Institute of Contemporary Mathematics — Sven Bjarke Gudnason
  25. University of Cincinnati theory group — Jure Zupan
  26. Nordita, Stockholm Theoretical High Energy Physics Group — Niels Obers
  27. University of New South Wales — Michael Schmidt
  28. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign High Energy Theory Group — Aida X. El-Khadra
  29. Institute for Theoretical Physics at KU Leuven — Thomas Hertog
  30. CPHT Ecole Polytechnique — Balt van Rees
  31. University of Chicago Particle Theory Group — Jeffrey Harvey
  32. Carleton University Theory Group — Thomas Gregoire
  33. University of Wisconsin, Madison – Lisa Everett
  34. Durham Maths CPT – Simon Ross
  35. UC San Diego High-Energy Theory Group – Tongyan Lin
  36. Carnegie Mellon University high energy theory group – Rachel A. Rosen
  37. Center for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute – Julianne Dalcanton
  38. University of New Hampshire HET group – Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
  39. CERN Theory Department – Gian Giudice
  40. Syracuse University – Simon Catterall, Jay Hubisz, Jack Laiho, Scott Watson
  41. Argonne National Laboratory, HEP Theory Group – Carlos E.M. Wagner
  42. McGill University – Jim Cline
  43. University of Victoria Theory Group – Adam Ritz
  44. UCLA high energy theory group – Thomas Dumitrescu
  45. King’s College London (Physics) Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology Group – Malcolm Fairbairn
  46. University of Oviedo, Spain – Yolanda Lozano
  47. THEP, Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz – Pedro Schwaller
  48. Theoretical Physics, Physikalisches Institut, University of Bonn – Herbi Dreiner
  49. Theory Group, DESY, Hamburg Site – Christoph Grojean
  50. Northwestern University – André de Gouvêa
  51. University of Colorado High Energy Theory Group – Oliver DeWolfe
  52. Ohio State University, High Energy Theory group – Eric Braaten
  53. University of Oxford, Mathematical Physics Group – Luis Fernando Alday
  54. University of Southampton, String theory and Holography group – Kostas Skenderis
  55. Institut fuer Theoretische Physik, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover – Olaf Lechtenfeld
  56. Swansea University Particle Physics and Cosmology Theory group – Gert Aarts
  57. Technische Universität München, Particle and Astroparticle Theory – Martin Beneke
  58. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Theoretical Physics – Margarete Mühlleitner
  59. Rice University (Amin and Long Groups) – Mustafa A. Amin, Andrew J. Long
  60. University of Surrey, Mathematical Physics group – Alessandro Torrielli
  61. Wayne State University High Energy Theory Group – Gil Paz
  62. UC Davis, Fields, Strings, and Gravity group – Mukund Rangamani
  63. UC Davis (Cheng, Luty, Terning groups) – Markus Luty
  64. Los Alamos National Lab HET group – Michael Lawrence Graesser
  65. University of California at Santa Cruz theory group – Stefania Gori
  66. University of Kansas High Energy Theory group – Ian Lewis
  67. University of Münster – Michael Klasen
  68. University of Southern California (Gluscevic group) – Vera Gluscevic
  69. University of Nebraska-Lincoln – Peisi Huang
  70. Princeton Particle Phenomenology Group – Mariangela Lisanti
  71. University of Illinois Chicago – James Unwin
  72. High-Energy Theory group, Sapienza University of Rome – Roberto Contino
  73. University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Theoretical Physics Group – Simone Alioli
  74. Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Potsdam, Germany – Axel Kleinschmidt
  75. University of Nottingham (Particle Cosmology Group) – Edmund Copeland
  76. Texas A&M University – Kevin Kelly
  77. Technion particle theory group – Yael Shadmi
  78. Theoretical Particle Physics group, Lund University – Leif Lönnblad
  79. Particle Theory Group, University of Winnipeg – Evan McDonough, Andrew Frey
  80. Illinois State University – Neil Christensen
  81. University of Adelaide – Derek Leinweber
  82. Geometry and Mathematical Physics group, University of Birmingham, UK – Cyril Closset
  83. Particle Theory Group, Boston University – Martin Schmaltz
  84. AMTP at the School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin – Samson L. Shatashvili
  85. The Hamilton Mathematics Institute, Trinity College Dublin – Samson L. Shatashvili
  86. Yale University – Ian Moult
  87. Leiden University – Koenraad Schalm
  88. University of Padua High Energy Theory Group – Fabio Zwirner
  89. Institute of Physics, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil – Gustavo Burdman
  90. Simons Center for Geometry and Physics – Zohar Komargodski
  91. C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics, Stony Brook University – George Sterman
  92. Particle Phenomenology and Cosmology Group, Seoul National University – Hyung Do Kim
  93. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, ULBrussels – Riccardo Argurio
  94. Institute for Theoretical Physics, Heidelberg University – Tilman Plehn
  95. University of Auckland – Richard Easter
  96. Hebrew University High Energy Group (TH + PH) – Yonit Hochberg and Michael Smolkin
  97. University College Dublin – Christiana Pantelidou
  98. Uppsala University, High Energy Physics Division (Enberg) and Theoretical Physics Division (Minahan) – Rikard Enberg, Joseph Minahan
  99. Theory Group at the Physics Department of the University of Roma “Tor Vergata” – Massimo Bianchi
  100. ICTP – Paolo Creminelli
  101. Mathematical Physics Group, University of Edinburgh – Joan Simon
  102. Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC) in Santo André – Chee Sheng Fong
  103. TU Wien – Daniel Grumiller
  104. Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique Théorique (LAPTh) – Luc Frappat
  105. University of Arizona High Energy Theory Group – Shufang Su
  106. High Energy Theory Group, BNL -— Sally Dawson
  107. Arizona State University High-Energy group – Tanmay Vachaspati
  108. TRIUMF Particle Theory Group – David Morrissey
  109. Crete Center of Theoretical Physics, Heraklion, Greece – Vasilis Niarchos
  110. High Energy Theory group of Università Roma Tre – Vittorio Lubicz
  111. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and IFAE Theory Group - Rafel Escribano
  112. Ghent University – Thomas Mertens
  113. TU Dortmund Particle Theory – Gudrun Hiller
  114. Indiana University, theory group – Raymond Co
  115. New High Energy Theory Center (NHETC) at Rutgers University – Scott Thomas
  116. Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Hautes Energies (LPTHE), Sorbonne Université/CNRS – Michela Petrini
  117. Oklahoma State University (Babu, Brdar,Goncalves) – Kaladi Babu
  118. High Energy Theory group at the University of Michigan – Finn Larsen
  119. Cosmology group at the Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA) – José Luis Bernal
  120. Institute of Theoretical Physics IFT CSIC-UAM – Jose L. F. Barbon
  121. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin — Particles, Fields and the Universe Theory Group – Jan Plefka
  122. HEP/Cosmo groups at Institute for Theoretical Physics at the Georg-August University in Goettingen – Laura Covi and Steffen Schumann
  123. TP1, Theoretical Particle Physics, Siegen University – Alexander Lenz
  124. Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics group at the Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg – Ansgar Denner
  125. Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology, RWTH Aachen University – Michael Krämer
  126. Theory Group, Physics Department of the University of Turin – Roberto Tateo
  127. High Energy Theory group at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) – Joao Penedones
  128. Center for Neutrino Physics, Virginia Tech – Patrick Huber
  129. High Energy Group, William and Mary – Christopher D. Carone
  130. Theoretical High Energy Physics Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Alexander Sevrin
  131. IPM, Tehran (Sheikh-Jabbari group) – M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari
  132. Particle Theory Group, UC Riverside – Hai-Bo Yu
  133. HET Group, UMass Amherst – Michael Ramsey-Musolf
  134. Particle Physics Theory Group, Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University – Sinya Aoki
  135. Theoretical Particle Physics Group, Radboud University – Wim Beenakker
  136. Particle Theory Group, University of Manchester – Jeff Forshaw
  137. Theoretical Physics Group, Southern Methodist University – Pavel Nadolsky, Fredrick Olness, Robert Vega
  138. Niels Bohr Institute – N. Emil J. Bjerrum-Bohr
  139. Gravitational, Astro-, and Particle Physics Amsterdam (GRAPPA), University of Amsterdam / Nikhef – Christoph Weniger
  140. University of Bern, Institute for Theoretical Physics – Thomas Becher
  141. Gravitation Group at the School for Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London – Rodolfo Russo
  142. Particle Phenomenology Group, TU Dresden – Dominik Stoeckinger
  143. High Energy Theory Group, University of Minnesota – Tony Gherghetta
  144. Michigan State University – Huey-Wen Lin
  145. Tel Aviv University – Tomer Volansky
  146. Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES), Theoretical Physics – Slava Rychkov
  147. University of Jyväskylä, QCD theory group – Tuomas Lappi
  148. high energy group at Chalmers University of Technology – Riccardo Catena
  149. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics (TTP) – Kirill Melnikov
  150. Zeuthen Particle Physics Theory group, DESY – Jeremy Green
  151. HET group of University of Barcelona – M.Concepcion Gonzalez-Garcia
  152. High Energy Theory group at the University of Florida – Rachel Houtz
  153. Particle theory group at the University of Notre Dame – Adam Martin
  154. Florence INFN group – Diego Redigolo
  155. Laboratoire de Physique de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure, cosmology group and high-energy group – Vincent Vennin
  156. University of British Columbia high-energy theory group – Mark Van Raamsdonk
  157. Gravity, cosmology, HET group at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Louise Dolan
  158. Oxford Particle Theory Group – John Wheater
  159. High-energy theory group at Columbia University – Frederik Denef, Brian Greene, Lam Hui, Alberto Nicolis
  160. Utrecht University, High energy/string theory groups – Thomas Grimm, Umut Gursoy, Stefan Vandoren
  161. Theoretical Physics group, Department of Mathematics, King’s College London – Nadav Drukker
  162. Theoretical Physics Group at Imperial College London – Daniel Waldram
  163. Colorado State University, HEPPA group – Julia Gehrlein
  164. Institut de Physique Théorique, Université Paris-Saclay, cosmology, particle theory, mathematical physics and string theory groups – Stéphane Lavignac, Mariana Graña
  165. University of Southampton, Physics and Astronomy – Nick Evans
  166. High Energy Theory Group, City College of the City University of New York – Sebastian Franco
  167. Florida State University’s HEP Theory Group – Takemichi Okui
  168. TH Group at DIFA, University of Bologna and INFN Bologna – Silvia Pascoli
  169. Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology at Durham University – Michael Spannowsky
  170. PAN Theory Group (particles, astrophysics, and Nuclei) at U Connecticut – Thomas Blum
  171. Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics (MPIK) - Heidelberg – Mandred Lindner
  172. Particle Theory & Cosmology group, IBS Center for Theoretical Physics of the Universe (IBS-CTPU), Korea – Kiwoon Choi
  173. Brown University (Spradlin and Volovich group) – Anastasia Volovich
  174. Centre for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London – Andreas Brandhuber
  175. CP3 at Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) – Celine Degrande
  176. String Theory group, Hamburg University - Timo Weigand
  177. Particle Astro/Cosmo/Pheno group at Brown U. - Savvas Koushiappas
  178. Particle Phenomenology Group, Hamburg University - Gudrid Moortgat-Pick
  179. University of Basel – Admir Greljo
  180. University of Minnesota Duluth High Energy Theory/Cosmology Group – Claire Zukowski
  181. University of Edinburgh PPT group – Richard Ball
  182. Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology – Risa Wechsler
  183. Case Western Reserve University, Particle Astro Theory Group – Kurt Hinterbichler
  184. University of Oklahoma – Kuver Sinha
  185. University of Glasgow – Christoph Englert
  186. University of Helsinki and Helsinki Institute of Physics – Kari Rummukainen
  187. University of Tehran – Hajar Ebrahim
  188. University of South Carolina – Alexey Petrov
  189. IGFAE - Universidade de Santiago de Compostela - Theory Group – Carlos Salgado
  190. University of Virginia High-Energy Physics Theory group – Julian Heeck
  191. Mandelstam Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa – João Rodrigues
  192. Particle Theory Group, Department of Physics, University of Zurich – Massimiliano Grazzini
  193. Machine Learning for Particle Physics group, HEPHY, Vienna – Claudius Krause
  194. Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Science (Theoretical Particle Physics) – Richard Ruiz

back to top


Below, we address some questions that were raised to us either during the survey period or, more recently, in response to the new February 15th accord. Please click on the question to see the answer.

1. What is the history behind the January 7th response deadline in HET? The agreement on a common acceptance deadline for postdoc offers in theoretical high energy physics was reached in 2007. The open letter to the community, original signatories, and FAQs (including the rationale for selecting January 7th) are provided here. The original motivation for the deadline continues to remain valid today: it is imperative that candidates have a full set of options to choose from and are not limited to an early offer with a short deadline.
2. Why change the acceptance deadline? The main reason for moving the acceptance deadline away from January 7th is to allow crucial decisions by candidates and by hiring groups to be made while e.g. institutions are in session. January 7th was selected as the least desirable among various options in a recent survey of nearly 600 community members (see arXiv article). We hope that moving the date will allow for easier communication between candidates and their mentors, candidates and recruiting groups, and among faculty making hiring decisions.
3. Was the survey focused on or dominated by a particular subfield? Significant effort was made to reach out to all subfields in HET. 588 community members answered, representing a diverse set of subfields, including phenomenology, formal, cosmology and astro, as described in Table 1 of the arXiv article (note that respondents could select more than one subfield). For example, 179 (30%) of the respondents were in the formal area. This appears to be roughly in line with the relative size of this community when looking at recent faculty hires (see https://particle.physics.ucdavis.edu/rumor/doku.php?id=statistics).

The arXiv article encouraged people who hadn’t yet responded to the survey to do so, and we continued collecting responses over the month of July. In addition, the proposal for the new accord was presented at the Strings virtual Town Hall on July 27th 2023, with roughly 200 people in attendance. The slides were made accessible to remaining participants, roughly 1000 people. The additional responses to the survey did not change the overall conclusions, so there was no need to update the analysis posted to our webpage.

Furthermore, placing various cuts on the data, all subfields stated that January 7th was disliked as the choice of deadline, with similar proportions. For example, in every sector of the community, January 7th was only favored by 11% of the community or less. While the numbers did vary, February 15th was the most favored date among all subfields. The preferences of the respondents who identified themselves as formal aligned with those of the rest of the sample. The results were thus not dominated by any particular subfield.
4. Why February 15th? February 15th was the most preferred option by a wide margin, while January 30th was the least disliked option (Figs. 4-7 of the arXiv article). The margin between both in terms of the number of people disliking them was however very small. In the end, February 15th was proposed based primarily on this community input and noting the additional benefit of aligning the deadline with the astrophysics community.
5. Would moving the common deadline later lead to logistical challenges? The astronomy community provides evidence that a later postdoc deadline of February 15th can work. In this community, most postdoc offers are made in January and the response deadline is not earlier than February 15th. The American Astronomical Society’s (AAS) policy, adopted in 1988 and later reaffirmed in 2003 and 2006, can be found here. Similarly, the mathematics community reached a similar agreement with a deadline of February 6th, which can be found here.

It is however important to be cognizant of how a later response deadline can affect applicants who are in complicated visa situations, need to arrange child-care, and/or must coordinate dual careers. Were the acceptance deadline to change to February 15th, institutions are encouraged to be mindful of these challenges and to be as flexible as possible with starting dates for those who face the challenges listed above. Similarly, institutions from which the candidates are departing are encouraged to help ensure that there are no large gaps in employment whenever possible.
6. Would a later deadline mean that applicants hold onto offers for longer? It is not clear that this will be the case, as a later response deadline may mean that individual institutions decide to make their offers later as well. The data from the Rumor Mill (kindly provided by Felix Yu), averaged over the last 6 years, indicates that candidates who currently receive an offer before January 1st on average accept within 12 days of receiving their preferred offer (Fig. 1 of the arXiv article). In general, applicants should be aware that the “best practice” is to not hold onto multiple offers longer than is needed to make their decision.
7. Would extending the response deadline unreasonably extend second and third-round offers for many weeks/months? Data from the postdoc Rumor Mill sheds some light on this question. Over the last six hiring seasons, 90% of all offers in a given year were accepted within two weeks of the January 7th deadline and 95% within three weeks (Fig. 1 of the arXiv article). There are two important caveats to keep in mind when interpreting this data. First, there may be a delay between when an applicant accepts an offer and when they post it to the Rumor Mill (although this just makes the conclusions conservative). Second, applicants who receive offers more than one week beyond the January 7th deadline may be less likely to report it to the Rumor Mill.
8. What is the ratification process? Our aim is to let groups consider the new deadline and its implementation at their institutions. Since the accord was opened for signatures in August, a time when many are traveling, we want to be cognizant of giving groups ample time to discuss. We will thus take stock of the “ratification” of the accord on September 30th 2023. On September 30th 2023, we will circulate another e-mail informing everyone whether or not the accord has been ratified by meeting the criteria spelled out in Term #3 of the accord. If the accord is not ratified by that time, we will send another email on June 30th 2024 informing the community whether or not this accord will go into effect for the next cycle, or whether it will be completely void.
9. Can a signature be withdrawn? Yes, institutions can withdraw their signatures at any time by e-mailing het.postdoc.deadline [at] gmail [dot] com. If a signature is withdrawn before the stated deadline of September 30th 2023 it will not count towards the ratification decision.
10. Is the accord binding? Like the January 7th accord, this accord is not a legally binding document, but rather a public agreement among groups to coordinate. As is the case for the previous accord, groups can join or un-join the supporting list of institutions at any time. It is our hope the new accord will be “enforced” by the fact that it is a new public norm driven by the reasons stated above and the need to coordinate a common date.
11. What about future modifications? The best practices in any field can evolve with time and can be adjusted. The effects of changing an acceptance deadline is not entirely predictable. After the acceptance deadline change, it may take a few hiring cycles for new rhythms and habits to be worked out. It is our intention to continue to collect possible concerns and to monitor as groups sign on or off from the accord in the first two cycles, and their reasons for doing so. We also intend to conduct a similar survey after three cycles, to gauge whether the new accord is working as intended and we will welcome assistance from anyone interested. A survey may be circulated earlier if a trend of groups signing off develops. If there is a prevalent opinion that further change is needed, in either direction, an updated accord can be drafted and ratified at that time.
12. So when will offers be made? A fixed deadline for making offers is challenging to implement across institutions given how varied administrative rules are between schools — and, moreso, countries. This is why we explicitly did not include a mention of this in the new February 15th accord. Recall, that the original January 7th accord that was ratified in 2007 also had no such statement.

The important decision of when offers are made is left to individual institutions and we trust that each will make a decision that works best for them and the postdoc candidates. If the February 15th accord is ratified, it will likely take a couple of years for individual institutions—and the community as a whole—to settle on the most optimal timeline. As this process unfolds, it will be great if institutions continue talking amongst themselves and coordinating to find the best compromises. For example, institutions can agree to make offers in early-to-mid Jan if that is what the majority feels is best. And if this is something you’d like to see, we urge you to petition for it amongst your colleagues.

Looking at the data from the HET postdoc rumor mill (published in our arXiv article), we found that most first-round offers decide before the deadline (currently January 7th) quickly, typically within a couple of weeks (see Figs. 1 and 2 here). Therefore, under the current system, we find no evidence that offers are being “hoarded” by a small number of applicants, holding up the process for second-round offers. If the February 15th accord is ratified, hopefully this would continue to be the case and we would see offers being accepted/declined over the course of January, with only those applicants who have good reason to hold off on a decision (say, because they are waiting to hear back from a fellowship with a later offer date) waiting until February 15th to respond. While it is difficult to predict in advance, this may well lead to a reduced crunch of offers being declined, offered and accepted in the days and hours leading up to the deadline.
13. What should I put on my postdoc advertisement for the 2023-2024 cycle? We understand that many groups will need or want to publish their postdoc ads before the September 30th deadline for ratification. If this applies to your group, we recommend keeping your application deadline the same as it was last year for this cycle. On September 30th 2023, you will be notified whether the new accord is in effect or whether the old January 7th accord will continue to be in force for this upcoming hiring cycle. If ratified, you can decide at that time to make offers as you did previously, or delay making offers.
14. What are the timelines for the multidisciplinary postdoctoral fellowships?
  • Berkeley Miller Fellowship: Acceptance deadline is typically the third week of January
  • Harvard Society of Junior Fellows: Acceptance deadline is the end of January
  • Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions: Offers made ~mid-late February
  • MIT Pappalardo Fellowship: Acceptance deadline is currently Jan 7 to be in-line with the current HET deadline.
  • NASA Hubble Fellowship: Offers typically made at the end of Jan/beginning of Feb, with an acceptance deadline of Feb 15
  • Princeton Center for Theoretical Science (PCTS) Fellowship: No official acceptance deadline; informal encouragement to respond by early January
  • UC Presidential and Chancellor Fellowships: Offers made at the end of February
  • UC LANL Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowships: offers made in mid-December, acceptance deadline in early January

Further questions? Please let us know at het.postdoc.deadline [at] gmail [dot] com if we can clarify any further concerns.

back to top