Chalk Talks for Postdocs: Navigating the Interview Process for Faculty Positions

Postdocs at Rockefeller go on to pursue a variety of careers, but most will end up at academic institutions where many will assume tenure-track faculty positions. The competition for these sought-after roles is stiff, and the interview process can be long and nuanced. Enter: the chalk talk. The chalk talk is a portion of the interview process where candidates explain their research and goals with the assistance of a white board. These talks are a mechanism for explaining the value that the candidate would add to the institution through their lab’s proposed research. This is often the final stage of the interview process for faculty positions and is a space where candidates can not only showcase their research vision, but also their collegiality and fit for the department community. 

While scientists are trained on how to talk about their work, this training is often limited to traditional slideshow styles of presentation. Graduate students and postdocs are rarely trained on the nuances and norms of delivering a successful chalk talk, a critical component of the academic faculty interview process. To compound that issue, chalk talks are often attended by a small group of individuals, so many applicants have never had the opportunity to observe one. Thus, exposure and experience are both lacking, which results in heightened anxiety around this mysterious communication form rather than informed preparedness. 

In an effort to support Rockefeller postdocs who are pursuing faculty positions and in response to expressed needs of the postdoc community, RockEDU launched Chalk Talks for Postdocs. This initiative was a collaboration between RockEDU BIOME and RockEDU Fellows alongside Dr. Jeremy Rock and Dr. Steve Bonilla. The ethos of the program along with its core elements are outlined in Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Chalk Talk for Postdocs occurred over the course of four weeks and consisted of: a chalk talk demo session facilitated by Steve Bonilla and Jeremy Rock, a postdoc chalk talk practice session for each participant, a group coffee chat with either Steve or Jeremy, and optional peer-peer meet ups for support.

Recruitment and the Pilot Cohort

Figure 2. Postdoc participants were surveyed before the start of the program. A majority of participants had observed zero chalk talks. Half of the cohort had given only one chalk talk, while the other half had never delivered a chalk talk.

Program recruitment began in October 2024. Since the program was run as a pilot, we selected a small cohort, capping the group at six participants. All applicants were interested in leading a research group as a tenure-track faculty member. Most applicants were uncomfortable with their understanding of a chalk talk and had limited experience giving or observing them (Figure 2, n=6). Priority for participation in our pilot cohort was given to applicants who were applying for faculty positions within the next year. All applicants expressed interest in being “matched” with a fellow postdoc in the program for peer-peer support.

The Chalk Talk Demo 

We recruited two Rockefeller faculty members, Dr. Jeremy Rock and Dr. Steve Bonilla to support this program. At the time of this program, Jeremy Rock served the role of a more senior faculty member who had sat in on chalk talks for faculty positions while Dr. Steve Bonilla served the role of a newer faculty member who had recently delivered a chalk talk. During the chalk talk demo, Jeremy and Steve lifted the veil on the spoken and unspoken rules of the chalk talk by demonstrating an example of a successful chalk talk (delivered by Steve Bonilla) and hearing real-time feedback and reflections from a more senior faculty member (Jeremy Rock). 

The chalk talk highlighted a few key elements in developing and delivering a chalk talk including:

1. Write out your notes/visual aids on a “cheat sheet” so that you can come prepared, have something to refer to within your talk and easily practice 
2. Figure out the logistics and norms for each chalk talk; this can differ from interview to interview. Reaching out to the interviewing department chair or interview coordinator to ask some of the following questions can help you to feel more prepared:
   • Can you arrive early and draw out some of your more-detailed visual aids? 
   • Will questions be accepted throughout the talk or only at the end? 
   • Who is your audience? 
3. Consider your “big picture” goals and vision. 
   • Write 4-6 words that you would use to describe your research program (In Steve’s talk this appeared at the top of his board)*
   • Focus on the overarching goals of your research program and develop a talk that others can appreciate and understand without being experts in your field, without having read your research plan, or having attended your research talk earlier in the interview process. 
4. Project confidence and take care of yourself 
   • Give the chalk talk you planned to give irrespective of things that come up during your interview–the talk that you’re most comfortable delivering will generally present the strongest.
   • Balance humility, collegiality, time and topic management when considering questions and stay the course. 
   • Show up well rested, hydrated, and ready! 

*When delivering feedback on the chalk talk, Jeremy shared that the 4-6 words listed at the top of the board were extremely helpful and clear in reminding the audience about what Steve set out to demonstrate. No matter what, every attendee at Steve’s talk would walk away knowing who Steve is and, broadly, what his research vision entails.

Pre-work – Mapping out the Research Vision 

A comprehensive folder that includes chalk talk worksheets and assignments can be found here. 

In anticipation of the chalk talk demo, participants were assigned pre-work to reflect on the following in order to paint a picture of their vision for their research program:

• Who are you as a scientist and what gets you excited?

• What is your expertise?

• What is your big research question?
• In the context of your research program, what does success look like? 

Within the Chalk Talk Demo, participants were encouraged to revisit their pre-work responses in light of the demo. For example, did they want to share their overarching research question differently after hearing from Steve?

Participants were also given a chalk talk demo worksheet to reflect on the demo as well as begin setting the foundation to prepare for their practice chalk talks sessions to occur in the weeks to follow. This worksheet allowed participants to reflect on the following: 

• Mental preparation in terms of readiness and nerves 

• Foundational elements of your research to front load in the chalk talk (what do people need to know if they did not see your research proposal or previous research talk?)

• Your vision for your research program (based on what was shared in the pre-work)

• The appropriate level of detail for a chalk talk

• General demo reflections – what new learnings from the demo might you want to incorporate into your chalk talk plan?  

Peer Mentoring 

All six postdocs in our pilot cohort opted into the optional peer-mentoring portion of the program. This presented an opportunity for support and cultivation of friendship as postdocs navigated through the program and, most importantly, the interview process. RockEDU sponsored coffee for all meetings and broad conversation topics were shared in advance.

For example, after the demo, postdocs were encouraged to start considering: 

1. What would they like to draw out on their white board?
2. What are the 4-6 words they’d use to describe their research program? 

Once the practice chalk talk sessions kicked off, postdocs were encouraged to: 

1. Practice elements of their upcoming talk
2. Give peer feedback, or share general recaps after the chalk talk. 

For those between interviews, we advised them to give and receive advice about the process. 

Coffee Chats with HOL Mentors

Shortly after the chalk talk demo, each postdoc was assigned to a coffee chat session with either Steve or Jeremy. This was mandatory, however participants had the option of attending both. During these RockEDU-sponsored chats, postdocs and their assigned HOL mentor could discuss the chalk talk in an informal and low stakes environment. Three postdocs were assigned to each coffee chat. 

In this informal setting, postdocs had the opportunity to ask more pointed questions about how they might approach elements of their own chalk talk. Not only was this an opportunity for postdocs to obtain additional, more specific advice as they prepared their chalk talks, but it also allowed them to talk about the interview process in general and develop relationships with faculty members outside of their main HOL mentor. For Jeremy and Steve, the coffee chats provided a chance to engage with diverse postdocs from a wide-array of topic areas on campus.  

The Postdoc Chalk Talk Practice Sessions

The culminating component to the program involved each postdoc participant delivering a chalk talk in a small audience practice session. Each postdoc chalk talk practice session was attended by two postdoc peers from the program and either Jeremy or Steve. All postdocs were assigned a different faculty member from their coffee chat in an effort to maximize exposure to mentorship from both Jeremy and Steve. 

In advance of the session, both faculty members and postdocs received a chalk talk rubric to assist in both evaluating the chalk talk and providing feedback to the presenter. The rubric was designed based on conversations with Jeremy and Steve and reflections from the demo. Chalk talks were assessed using  a scale from 1-4 (with 1= did not meet and 4= exceeded) for each of the following domains:

• Content, Expertise, and Fit

• Pacing

• Clear Communication

• Collegiality

• Audience Awareness 

The rubric worksheet also included a space for comments and two open-ended questions: 

1. What stood out most about the content?
2. What stood out about the way it was presented?

In addition to the written feedback, participants were encouraged to offer verbal feedback. All postdoc presenters were able to receive feedback (either verbal, written, or both) from their assigned faculty member and their two postdoc peers in attendance. 

Feedback and Outcomes

Figure 3. Postdocs in the pilot cohort reported on the elements of the program that they felt were essential and offered the highest value. Data was collected in an open-ended survey question.

The Chalk Talks for Postdocs pilot program assessments were collected in the form of surveys sent to postdoc participants as well as to our HOL mentors, Jeremy and Steve. Feedback from our pilot cohort and HOL mentors is summarized below. 

Postdoc feedback

Overall, participants in the pilot cohort were highly satisfied with their experience in the program and felt that the time commitment was as expected. Highlights of the program were the HOL-led demo and unanimously, the practice sessions (Figure 3, n=5). Participants felt that the didactic training in the demo combined with the opportunity to see multiple chalk talks and receive feedback was an effective way to demystify this, often shrouded, element of the tenure-track faculty interview process. A few responses indicated that the content was great and that the program was compatible with a lab-flexible schedule, making it approachable.

While participants did not mention the coffee chats or peer-peer meetups by name in their program highlights, they added that they would not remove these elements of the program as they were still nice and provided opportunities to meet someone new, connect on a common experience, and hold one another accountable throughout the program. Participants in the pilot cohort noted that they think expansion of future cohorts to include more participants could add additional, valuable voices to the experience. 

Some participants indicated that the written feedback through the rubric was helpful, all participants unanimously agreed that the verbal feedback from HOL and peer attendees was most helpful.

Suggestions for future iterations of the program included: having multiple demo chalk talks by different faculty, making slight adjustments to the timing of the program, and incorporation of a workshop/co-working session with peers for strategizing for the practice session.

Figure 4. Postdoc participants were surveyed before the start of the program and at the program conclusion regarding their comfort level as it pertains to what a chalk talk is and entails. n=6, p = 0.0037 (t-test).

Most importantly, we measured a change in participants’ self-assessed comfort levels surrounding their knowledge of and preparedness for delivering a chalk talk. We asked the same question in our October recruitment survey and our end-of-program survey (end of December): “How comfortable are you with your understanding of a chalk talk and what it entails?” (ranked on a scale of 1-5, 1 = least comfortable and 5 = most comfortable). The average comfort level of our cohort before the program 3 (responses ranged from 2-4). Following the conclusion of the program, the mean comfort level of our cohort was a 4.5, with all responses being either a 4 or 5 (Figure 4). This significant increase in cohort comfort in relation to the chalk talk process is a key indicator of success of this pilot program. This was further illustrated by 100% of participants saying that they would recommend the Chalk Talks for Postdocs program. One participant noted that they “would highly recommend it to other postdocs”, while another exclaimed “this is one of the most impactful workshops I have taken at Rockefeller”. 

Cohort participants report feeling “much better”, “more prepared”, “more comfortable”, and “more confident” about the chalk talk process than they did before participation in the program. One final measure of success was showcased by multiple participants noting the sentiment that this program demystified the chalk talk process for them. 

This program would not have been possible or as impactful without the participation of incredible HOL mentors. Our cohort participants really echoed the effectiveness of the HOL mentor participation and expressed gratitude for their feedback and time.

HOL feedback

While we are grateful for the time and immense value added by the HOL mentors, we also anticipated and hoped that the program might provide value to our HOL mentors.

The HOL mentors liked the overall structure of the program and felt that the engagement by the postdocs was really great. The time commitment for participation as a mentor in the program matched their expectations and both HOL mentors said that they would recommend this program to other HOLs. For future iterations, they suggested that postdoc participants could share a summary of their research proposal before the practice to give audience members a foundation for what to expect. Additionally, a suggestion was made to expand the cohort, within reason, noting the value of a smaller cohort in fostering camaraderie.

As far as value gained from the HOL perspective, they felt that this was a really nice opportunity to connect with postdocs across campus, from different disciplines. One HOL commented, “This was a very rewarding experience. It’s events like these that can foster a stronger sense of community at Rockefeller.”

Summary

In summary, this program aimed to provide a training opportunity for postdocs that is often absent from traditional scientific training environments. Through this program, we offered a demonstration of the chalk talk process, with expert commentary, as well as support structures for participants to successfully prepare and deliver a chalk talk of their own. In addition to gaining these essential skills, participants, both postdocs and HOLs, built a supportive community through mentorship.