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.
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:
- 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.
- 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understood that the signature remains valid if the group leadership rotates to somebody else, unless the signature is withdrawn explicitly.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Institutions along with communicating representative(s)
Last update: November 5, 2023
- Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP) — Lars Bildsten
- Laval University Theory Group — Jean-François Fortin
- University of Maryland particle theory group — Raman Sundrum
- Cambridge University theoretical particle physics group — Ben Allanach
- Nikhef Theory Group — Robert Fleischer
- University of Oregon — Graham Kribs
- Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) — Juan Maldacena
- University of Washington — Laurence G. Yaffe
- Fermilab Theory Division — Marcela Carena
- SLAC Particle Theory Group — Tom Rizzo
- University of Melbourne, Theoretical Particle Physics Group — Nicole Bell
- The Weizmann Institute — Ofer Aharony
- Jozef Stefan Institute — Jernej Fesel-Kamenik
- University of Ljubljana — Jernej Fesel-Kamenik
- Johns Hopkins Theory Group — Surjeet Rajendran
- University of California Irvine — Tim Tait
- Brandeis High Energy Theory Group — Matthew Headrick
- University of Hawaii Theory Group — Jason Kumar
- Monash University — Ulrik Egede
- University of Toronto THEP — David Curtin
- Cornell University Theory Group — Csaba Csaki and Liam McAllister
- University of Utah HET Group — Paolo Gondolo
- Queen’s University — Joseph Bramante
- Henan University, P. R. China, Mathematical Physics and High-Energy Theory group at the Institute of Contemporary Mathematics — Sven Bjarke Gudnason
- University of Cincinnati theory group — Jure Zupan
- Nordita, Stockholm Theoretical High Energy Physics Group — Niels Obers
- University of New South Wales — Michael Schmidt
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign High Energy Theory Group — Aida X. El-Khadra
- Institute for Theoretical Physics at KU Leuven — Thomas Hertog
- CPHT Ecole Polytechnique — Balt van Rees
- University of Chicago Particle Theory Group — Jeffrey Harvey
- Carleton University Theory Group — Thomas Gregoire
- University of Wisconsin, Madison – Lisa Everett
- Durham Maths CPT – Simon Ross
- UC San Diego High-Energy Theory Group – Tongyan Lin
- Carnegie Mellon University high energy theory group – Rachel A. Rosen
- Center for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute – Julianne Dalcanton
- University of New Hampshire HET group – Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
- CERN Theory Department – Gian Giudice
- Syracuse University – Simon Catterall, Jay Hubisz, Jack Laiho, Scott Watson
- Argonne National Laboratory, HEP Theory Group – Carlos E.M. Wagner
- McGill University – Jim Cline
- University of Victoria Theory Group – Adam Ritz
- UCLA high energy theory group – Thomas Dumitrescu
- King’s College London (Physics) Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology Group – Malcolm Fairbairn
- University of Oviedo, Spain – Yolanda Lozano
- THEP, Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz – Pedro Schwaller
- Theoretical Physics, Physikalisches Institut, University of Bonn – Herbi Dreiner
- Theory Group, DESY, Hamburg Site – Christoph Grojean
- Northwestern University – André de Gouvêa
- University of Colorado High Energy Theory Group – Oliver DeWolfe
- Ohio State University, High Energy Theory group – Eric Braaten
- University of Oxford, Mathematical Physics Group – Luis Fernando Alday
- University of Southampton, String theory and Holography group – Kostas Skenderis
- Institut fuer Theoretische Physik, Leibniz Universitaet Hannover – Olaf Lechtenfeld
- Swansea University Particle Physics and Cosmology Theory group – Gert Aarts
- ETH Zurich (Gaberdiel and Senatore groups) – Leonardo Senatore, Matthias Gaberdiel
- Technische Universität München, Particle and Astroparticle Theory – Martin Beneke
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Theoretical Physics – Margarete Mühlleitner
- Rice University (Amin and Long Groups) – Mustafa A. Amin, Andrew J. Long
- University of Surrey, Mathematical Physics group – Alessandro Torrielli
- Wayne State University High Energy Theory Group – Gil Paz
- UC Davis, Fields, Strings, and Gravity group – Mukund Rangamani
- UC Davis (Cheng, Luty, Terning groups) – Markus Luty
- Los Alamos National Lab HET group – Michael Lawrence Graesser
- University of California at Santa Cruz theory group – Stefania Gori
- University of Kansas High Energy Theory group – Ian Lewis
- University of Münster – Michael Klasen
- University of Southern California (Gluscevic group) – Vera Gluscevic
- University of Nebraska-Lincoln – Peisi Huang
- Princeton Particle Phenomenology Group – Mariangela Lisanti
- University of Illinois Chicago – James Unwin
- High-Energy Theory group, Sapienza University of Rome – Roberto Contino
- University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Theoretical Physics Group – Simone Alioli
- Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Potsdam, Germany – Axel Kleinschmidt
- University of Nottingham (Particle Cosmology Group) – Edmund Copeland
- Texas A&M University – Kevin Kelly
- Technion particle theory group – Yael Shadmi
- Theoretical Particle Physics group, Lund University – Leif Lönnblad
- Particle Theory Group, University of Winnipeg – Evan McDonough, Andrew Frey
- Illinois State University – Neil Christensen
- University of Adelaide – Derek Leinweber
- Geometry and Mathematical Physics group, University of Birmingham, UK – Cyril Closset
- Particle Theory Group, Boston University – Martin Schmaltz
- AMTP at the School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin – Samson L. Shatashvili
- The Hamilton Mathematics Institute, Trinity College Dublin – Samson L. Shatashvili
- Yale University – Ian Moult
- Leiden University – Koenraad Schalm
- String Theory Group, Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Amsterdam – Jan de Boer
- University of Padua High Energy Theory Group – Fabio Zwirner
- Institute of Physics, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil – Gustavo Burdman
- Simons Center for Geometry and Physics – Zohar Komargodski
- C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics, Stony Brook University – George Sterman
- Particle Phenomenology and Cosmology Group, Seoul National University – Hyung Do Kim
- Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, ULBrussels – Riccardo Argurio
- Institute for Theoretical Physics, Heidelberg University – Tilman Plehn
- University of Auckland – Richard Easter
- Hebrew University High Energy Group (TH + PH) – Yonit Hochberg and Michael Smolkin
- University College Dublin – Christiana Pantelidou
- Uppsala University, High Energy Physics Division (Enberg) and Theoretical Physics Division (Minahan) – Rikard Enberg, Joseph Minahan
- Theory Group at the Physics Department of the University of Roma “Tor Vergata” – Massimo Bianchi
- ICTP – Paolo Creminelli
- Mathematical Physics Group, University of Edinburgh – Joan Simon
- Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC) in Santo André – Chee Sheng Fong
- TU Wien – Daniel Grumiller
- Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique Théorique (LAPTh) – Luc Frappat
- University of Arizona High Energy Theory Group – Shufang Su
- High Energy Theory Group, BNL -— Sally Dawson
- Arizona State University High-Energy group – Tanmay Vachaspati
- TRIUMF Particle Theory Group – David Morrissey
- Crete Center of Theoretical Physics, Heraklion, Greece – Vasilis Niarchos
- High Energy Theory group of Università Roma Tre – Vittorio Lubicz
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and IFAE Theory Group - Rafel Escribano
- Ghent University – Thomas Mertens
- TU Dortmund Particle Theory – Gudrun Hiller
- Indiana University, theory group – Raymond Co
- New High Energy Theory Center (NHETC) at Rutgers University – Scott Thomas
- Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Hautes Energies (LPTHE), Sorbonne Université/CNRS – Michela Petrini
- Oklahoma State University (Babu, Brdar,Goncalves) – Kaladi Babu
- High Energy Theory group at the University of Michigan – Finn Larsen
- Cosmology group at the Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA) – José Luis Bernal
- Institute of Theoretical Physics IFT CSIC-UAM – Jose L. F. Barbon
- Humboldt Universität zu Berlin — Particles, Fields and the Universe Theory Group – Jan Plefka
- HEP/Cosmo groups at Institute for Theoretical Physics at the Georg-August University in Goettingen – Laura Covi and Steffen Schumann
- TP1, Theoretical Particle Physics, Siegen University – Alexander Lenz
- Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics group at the Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg – Ansgar Denner
- Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology, RWTH Aachen University – Michael Krämer
- Theory Group, Physics Department of the University of Turin – Roberto Tateo
- High Energy Theory group at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) – Joao Penedones
- Center for Neutrino Physics, Virginia Tech – Patrick Huber
- High Energy Group, William and Mary – Christopher D. Carone
- Theoretical High Energy Physics Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Alexander Sevrin
- IPM, Tehran (Sheikh-Jabbari group) – M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari
- Particle Theory Group, UC Riverside – Hai-Bo Yu
- HET Group, UMass Amherst – Michael Ramsey-Musolf
- Particle Physics Theory Group, Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University – Sinya Aoki
- Theoretical Particle Physics Group, Radboud University – Wim Beenakker
- Particle Theory Group, University of Manchester – Jeff Forshaw
- Theoretical Physics Group, Southern Methodist University – Pavel Nadolsky, Fredrick Olness, Robert Vega
- Niels Bohr Institute – N. Emil J. Bjerrum-Bohr
- Gravitational, Astro-, and Particle Physics Amsterdam (GRAPPA), University of Amsterdam / Nikhef – Christoph Weniger
- University of Bern, Institute for Theoretical Physics – Thomas Becher
- Gravitation Group at the School for Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London – Rodolfo Russo
- Particle Phenomenology Group, TU Dresden – Dominik Stoeckinger
- High Energy Theory Group, University of Minnesota – Tony Gherghetta
- Michigan State University – Huey-Wen Lin
- Tel Aviv University – Tomer Volansky
- Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES), Theoretical Physics – Slava Rychkov
- University of Jyväskylä, QCD theory group – Tuomas Lappi
- high energy group at Chalmers University of Technology – Riccardo Catena
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics (TTP) – Kirill Melnikov
- Zeuthen Particle Physics Theory group, DESY – Jeremy Green
- HET group of University of Barcelona – M.Concepcion Gonzalez-Garcia
- High Energy Theory group at the University of Florida – Rachel Houtz
- Particle theory group at the University of Notre Dame – Adam Martin
- Florence INFN group – Diego Redigolo
- Laboratoire de Physique de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure, cosmology group and high-energy group – Vincent Vennin
- University of British Columbia high-energy theory group – Mark Van Raamsdonk
- Gravity, cosmology, HET group at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Louise Dolan
- Oxford Particle Theory Group – John Wheater
- High-energy theory group at Columbia University – Frederik Denef, Brian Greene, Lam Hui, Alberto Nicolis
- Utrecht University, High energy/string theory groups – Thomas Grimm, Umut Gursoy, Stefan Vandoren
- Theoretical Physics group, Department of Mathematics, King’s College London – Nadav Drukker
- Theoretical Physics Group at Imperial College London – Daniel Waldram
- Colorado State University, HEPPA group – Julia Gehrlein
- Institut de Physique Théorique, Université Paris-Saclay, cosmology, particle theory, mathematical physics and string theory groups – Stéphane Lavignac, Mariana Graña
- University of Southampton, Physics and Astronomy – Nick Evans
- High Energy Theory Group, City College of the City University of New York – Sebastian Franco
- Florida State University’s HEP Theory Group – Takemichi Okui
- TH Group at DIFA, University of Bologna and INFN Bologna – Silvia Pascoli
- Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology at Durham University – Michael Spannowsky
- PAN Theory Group (particles, astrophysics, and Nuclei) at U Connecticut – Thomas Blum
- Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics (MPIK) - Heidelberg – Mandred Lindner
- Particle Theory & Cosmology group, IBS Center for Theoretical Physics of the Universe (IBS-CTPU), Korea – Kiwoon Choi
- Brown University (Spradlin and Volovich group) – Anastasia Volovich
- Centre for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London – Andreas Brandhuber
- CP3 at Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) – Celine Degrande
- String Theory group, Hamburg University - Timo Weigand
- Particle Astro/Cosmo/Pheno group at Brown U. - Savvas Koushiappas
- Particle Phenomenology Group, Hamburg University - Gudrid Moortgat-Pick
- University of Basel – Admir Greljo
- University of Minnesota Duluth High Energy Theory/Cosmology Group – Claire Zukowski
- University of Edinburgh PPT group – Richard Ball
- Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology – Risa Wechsler
- Case Western Reserve University, Particle Astro Theory Group – Kurt Hinterbichler
- University of Oklahoma – Kuver Sinha
- University of Glasgow – Christoph Englert
- University of Helsinki and Helsinki Institute of Physics – Kari Rummukainen
- University of Tehran – Hajar Ebrahim
- University of South Carolina – Alexey Petrov
- IGFAE - Universidade de Santiago de Compostela - Theory Group – Carlos Salgado
- University of Virginia High-Energy Physics Theory group – Julian Heeck
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.