Academia: Exponential Growth & Post Docs Till 40?

[Mépris]

^
If a reasonable number of physicists work together outside of universities, build their own internet community - an online department, if you will - and everybody meets on a fixed date and time, would problem 1) not be fixed?

 

[twofish-quant]

Also the fact that everyone can talk to everyone on the internet doesn't solve things. The problem with having everyone talk to everyone is that it results in a many shallow personal networks, whereas science research depends on having a few *deep* relationships. The other thing is that sometimes in order to have a conversation, you have to keep people out of the conversation.

Again, this is an "social engineering" problem, but it's not a trivial one to solve.

 

[twofish-quant]

^
If a reasonable number of physicists work together outside of universities, build their own internet community - an online department, if you will - and everybody meets on a fixed date and time, would problem 1) not be fixed?

Easier said then done. One problem is that if you have two professors from different universities swap ideas on their latest research online, this is considered good, and all non-trivial scientific collaborations go between different universities. If you have two people from competing companies do that, they'll get fired, assuming the regulators don't investigate you for anti-trust violations.

In order to have a department you need money and staff. And what's the point? It's not incredibly difficult to get an adjunct position once you have some status and reputation.

 

[Biosyn]

How is it a scam? At what point during a BS or PhD are students told they have to go into academia and become professors? A scam, by definition, must tell its targets of an attainable position/result when in fact, that position/result is impossible or nearly impossible to reach.

Thus, it is not a scam, despite some people deciding on their own that the only job they should be going for is a professorship.

Exactly what I was thinking.
Why would it be a scam? Students should do their due diligence. It's their choice. I don't think it's a scam.

 

[pi-r8]

Also the fact that everyone can talk to everyone on the internet doesn't solve things. The problem with having everyone talk to everyone is that it results in a many shallow personal networks, whereas science research depends on having a few *deep* relationships. The other thing is that sometimes in order to have a conversation, you have to keep people out of the conversation.

Again, this is an "social engineering" problem, but it's not a trivial one to solve.

That doesn't sound so hard to me. I've personally worked on several different kinds of projects with people that I've met through internet sites (it's a millenial thing- you old folks wouldn't understand :P). And after reading forums for a while, I start to get a feel for who is worth paying attention to and who I can safely ignore. You even have that special medal image to give you special recognition on this forum! I honestly think the only reason that nobody does "serious" science outside of academia is cultural inertia. We've internalized the idea that the only people outside academia who write science articles are cranks, and therefore the only people who do that tend to actually be cranks, which justifies our belief in ignoring those people.

 

[pi-r8]

Exactly what I was thinking.
Why would it be a scam? Students should do their due diligence. It's their choice. I don't think it's a scam.

"You should have done your due diligence" is not a valid justification of anything. Especially not when students are getting their heads filled with romantic advice like "follow your dreams", "trust your gut", and "just do what you love and don't worry about the money". I still say that it's unreasonably difficult for science students to get a realistic understanding of what a career path through academia is like.

One interesting thing I read recently is that higher education is in sort of a bizarre legal situation. They can't directly say that a college degree will help you get a job, because that would open them up to lawsuits if it doesn't. They also can't say that it won't help you get a job, because that's the main reason most people go to college. So instead they have to do sort of a "wink wink, nudge nudge" and let 3rd parties make the case that a college degree will get you a job.

 

[twofish-quant]

That doesn't sound so hard to me.

It's one of those things that sounds easier than it is. I do think that social networking will change the dynamics, but someone still needs to put the pieces together. Part of the reason that I'm telling people that the problems are X, Y, and Z is that I'd like to see someone work around X, Y, and Z.

You can writing someone an e-mail, but they don't have to reply.

I've personally worked on several different kinds of projects with people that I've met through internet sites (it's a millenial thing- you old folks wouldn't understand :P).

About 75% of the people that I work with, I've never met face-to-face. Everything at the office is instant messaging, e-mail, telephones, with the occasional teleconference.

I honestly think the only reason that nobody does "serious" science outside of academia is cultural inertia.

I don't think so. I haven't found any resistance at all from my peers toward me writing papers on my research. The problem is finding the time. If the *only* thing that was keeping me from publishing is "cultural inertia" then I would have done it already.

We've internalized the idea that the only people outside academia who write science articles are cranks, and therefore the only people who do that tend to actually be cranks, which justifies our belief in ignoring those people.

Who is "we"?

There is some internalization involved. From time to time, I get these crazy ideas about how I've solved the deep mysteries of the universe. However, usually I take a deep breath, get a good nights sleep, and in the morning I realize that my idea was crap. So if I have a new idea, I'm going to spend a few weeks kicking it to pieces before I even think of uploading to Archvix, and since I know what quality looks like, that keeps me from publishing something that I know is bad. And getting something good takes time and effort.

The thing that I could easily get at the university which I don't have now is a bunch of people to bounce ideas off of. So I have this crap idea that doesn't work. I mention it to someone else who agrees that it is crap, but then it might solve this other problem that they are working on, at which point we try to mold it into something interesting.

 

[twofish-quant]

"You should have done your due diligence" is not a valid justification of anything. Especially not when students are getting their heads filled with romantic advice like "follow your dreams", "trust your gut", and "just do what you love and don't worry about the money".

A bit of history. What happened in 2008 was not supposed to happen. In 1991, the Soviet Union fell, the web was invented and with technology and democracy, we were supposed to march to utopia, and what people put in your head (and in my head) was based on the assumption that we understand how economies worked and that recessions were impossible.

It didn't work out that way. One reason I never bought into this idea completely was that I knew enough history to look at the last dozen times people promised utopia. Also, you don't have to look far. The 1950's were one of those periods. The other thing is that a lot of the "romantics" came of age in the 1960's.

I still say that it's unreasonably difficult for science students to get a realistic understanding of what a career path through academia is like.

Sure, and part of it is that no one *knows* what a career path through academia looks like. You are asking for someone to package the future and give it to you, and this is just not possible. I can't tell you what you'll be doing in ten years, because I can't tell you what I'll be doing in ten years.

If you want an answer, the answer is "I don't know."

So instead they have to do sort of a "wink wink, nudge nudge" and let 3rd parties make the case that a college degree will get you a job.

Which is pretty common in business. The other thing that's a problem is that often the people that tell you these sorts of things actually believe them.

Also sometimes its true. As bad as the situation is, do you think that you would be better off without a college degree? Yes, most jobs that people get *could* be done without a degree, but a lot of times the first resume pass gets rid of people that don't have a degree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Does anyone have the actual paper by Sum? I keep reading how wonderful his methodology is, but can only find things in blogs. I'd like to see what his methodology actually is, rather than judge it by how near I think he comes to the "right" answer.

 

[D H]

Does anyone have the actual paper by Sum? I keep reading how wonderful his methodology is, but can only find things in blogs. I'd like to see what his methodology actually is, rather than judge it by how near I think he comes to the "right" answer.

I've looked. I can't find it.
Not here: http://www.northeastern.edu/clms/publications/
Not here, either: http://www.employmentpolicy.org/people/andrew-m-sum

I can find lots of blogs that quote these wonderful statistics, but not one that references the source of these statistics in the form of a white paper or journal paper. The only references provided are links to Sum's home page.I am very curious: How did he count graduate students? A good percentage of physical science (physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, ...) undergrads proceed on to graduate school rather than getting a job armed only with their undergraduate degree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Exactly one of the questions I have. Note that the difference between the two sets of numbers is approximately the number of people who go on to graduate school.

 

[daveyinaz]

"You should have done your due diligence" is not a valid justification of anything. Especially not when students are getting their heads filled with romantic advice like "follow your dreams", "trust your gut", and "just do what you love and don't worry about the money".

True dat homie! Like someone said...the tenet of all those too afraid to admit they are scamming someone.

 

[Locrian]

There's a few degrees like physiotherapy (an undergraduate course in many countries), accounting, actuarial science or social work, that I just cannot understand the existence of. Those should be in trade schools. Heck, one doesn't even need an accounting/actuarial science degree to get that kind of job. Not sure about the US, but elsewhere, one needs to do take a set of exams by an external body, say the ACCA. The thing I'm not certain of is whether someone with a major in accounting can get an accounting gig without being certified by something like the ACCA. Likewise for an actuary.

In the US you really can't get most accounting jobs without an accounting degree, and the majority will require a CPA for any real progression. There are some accounting jobs that are little more than book keeping that one can get without an accounting degree, but those are best avoided.

The only requirement to work as an actuary in the US are the actuarial designations, which do not require a college degree. However, they do require a lot of mathematical background. No one I know has ever heard of anyone becoming a credentialled actuary without a college degree.

IMNSHO, neither of those professions belong in trade schools in the US.

 

[nickyrtr]

A thought about postdocs ...

The money is not great, but it's enough to live on, and anyone who has chosen a career in science isn't in it for the money anyway. The work itself can be quite interesting and rewarding. Not so much if you have a bad boss, but the same is true of any profession. One could be a postdoc indefinitely and count it as a satisfying career if only a couple of things changed:

- Change the view in our science subculture that a postdoc is just an apprenticeship for something else. Modern science apparently needs lots of people doing what postdocs do, and far fewer doing what tenure-track faculty do. The former should therefore be viewed as a worthy career destination for most science PhD's.

- Give the postdoc role some measure of temporal and geographic stability. One should not have to move halfway across the country (or world) every couple of years to stay employed. Lifetime employment at one institution is probably too much to hope for, but at least give science workers as much job stability as in other professional fields.

 

[Locrian]

The money is not great, but it's enough to live on, and anyone who has chosen a career in science isn't in it for the money anyway.

False.

But what do you expect from statements like these? It would be miraculous if it were true.

 

[Choppy]

A thought about postdocs ...

The money is not great, but it's enough to live on, and anyone who has chosen a career in science isn't in it for the money anyway. The work itself can be quite interesting and rewarding. Not so much if you have a bad boss, but the same is true of any profession. One could be a postdoc indefinitely and count it as a satisfying career if only a couple of things changed:

- Change the view in our science subculture that a postdoc is just an apprenticeship for something else. Modern science apparently needs lots of people doing what postdocs do, and far fewer doing what tenure-track faculty do. The former should therefore be viewed as a worthy career destination for most science PhD's.

- Give the postdoc role some measure of temporal and geographic stability. One should not have to move halfway across the country (or world) every couple of years to stay employed. Lifetime employment at one institution is probably too much to hope for, but at least give science workers as much job stability as in other professional fields.

I'm not sure what Locrian is disagreeing with. I think Nickyrtr's opening statement is reasonable. There are situations where a high cost of living or supporting a large family or extravagant lifestyle would be impractical on a post-doctoral salary, but for the most part "enough to live on" is a fair statement, in my opinion. It is also fair to assume that most scientists are not primarily driven by earning potential. There are some..., but they usually become scientist-entrepreneurs.

With respect to NickyRTR's second point giving stability to the postdoc role - it's a nice idea, but the implementation is the difficult part. HOW would you propose we do this? Post-docs are generally hired to work on specific, time-limited projects. Once a project is completed, keeping a post-doc is just an extra cost with no added value. When new projects come up, often people with different skill sets are needed and you have a pool of newly trained, freshly graduated students who can walk in and start working on day one with little to no investment in training on your part.

 

[deRham]

No you don't. You never have a permanent job. I've switched fields every five years or so. There is no such thing as a permanent job. I hear rumors that they existed once before, but that was before my time. I've never had a permanent job. My current job pays well, but I could be out the door tomorrow.

This leads/relates to one of my questions for a long time, which is why there is a chasm between truly permanent jobs in academia and purely temporary ones. Someone brought up that they pay for people to learn but not to do (at least not in the exact same sense they learn - that is, if you learn theoretical topics in QFT, you have a high chance of ending up not doing QFT).

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if there were an intermediate, non-permanent position between a postdoc and a full professorship, and maybe even fewer "tenure" positions...but someone can feel free to vehemently object, provided a good reason is given. The reason is that I daresay a fair number of individuals leave academia not just because it's hard to find a job, but rather that it's hard to find a job you have *any* reasonable likelihood of keeping. Nothing is permanent. Even full professorships aren't, because you can die. But the point is an expectation of a reasonable chance at some security.

on specific, time-limited projects. Once a project is completed, keeping a post-doc is just an extra cost with no added value

Presumably when someone is hired, he/she has some long term tasks to perform. I imagine what would happen is you have some senior faculty member with whom you discuss what you plan to do in the future after some reasonable stage of time (maybe a year), and you get to stay if you've made good enough progress to convince the faculty member of your ability to follow through.

 

[LogicX]

So, this thread is making me very worried. How hard are chemistry jobs to come by compared to physics? I feel like chemistry has a lot of industrial application, or are all those jobs populated by chemical engineers?

 

[JDoolin]

Well, what do you love? If you love money, you'll probably find a way to make money, whatever you do. If you love chemistry and money, you'll find a way to make money doing chemistry. If you love chemistry, and don't love money, you'll probably enjoy doing chemistry, and not make a lot of money.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Salary for postdoc is about what in Physics?

I saw several postdocs in my field about 80k-90k USD.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Salary for postdoc is about what in Physics?

I saw several postdocs in my field about 80k-90k USD.

The salary for physics is about half that, maybe 40-45k. The spread is very large however. Theorists as a group tend to be on the low side, experimentalists on the higher side.

If you have postdocs at 80-90k, can I hazard a guess that a postdoc isn't necessary for many who pursue careers in your field? For physics, you generally have to do 1 or 2 postdocs to have a shot at any job in the field (at least in theoretical physics, the average is 6 years of postdocing for those who land tenure track positions).

 

[Pyrrhus]

The salary for physics is about half that, maybe 40-45k. The spread is very large however. Theorists as a group tend to be on the low side, experimentalists on the higher side.

If you have postdocs at 80-90k, can I hazard a guess that a postdoc isn't necessary for many who pursue careers in your field? For physics, you generally have to do 1 or 2 postdocs to have a shot at any job in the field (at least in theoretical physics, the average is 6 years of postdocing for those who land tenure track positions).

In my field, postdocs are not the norm. Many find jobs in industry at banks, consulting firms, research centers, federal reserve, government... and Others (mostly those at the top Econ schools) find faculty positions right after graduating.

Postdoc are nice if you want to learn from a top scientist (usually a nobel laureate in econ).

 

[ParticleGrl]

Here is an economics project then- why is the labor market for economists so much better than the labor market for scientists? Does this say anything about where our economy is headed?

 

[nickyrtr]

[...]
With respect to NickyRTR's second point giving stability to the postdoc role - it's a nice idea, but the implementation is the difficult part. HOW would you propose we do this? Post-docs are generally hired to work on specific, time-limited projects. Once a project is completed, keeping a post-doc is just an extra cost with no added value.

By that logic, a university science department should also hire its top tier faculty on a short-term, contract basis, rather than offering lifetime tenure, yet they don't. It's not for teaching purposes either, because most of the classes are taught by grad student TA's and part-time adjuncts.

Other organizations, outside academia, also serve diverse, time-limited projects but still manage to keep a permanent staff. The military never knows what war it will have to fight with what operational conditions, yet it has career officers and enlisted. A law firm never knows what cases will arise, but still manages to keep a permanent staff of lawyers and clerks. It can be done.

When new projects come up, often people with different skill sets are needed and you have a pool of newly trained, freshly graduated students who can walk in and start working on day one with little to no investment in training on your part.

Why would you expect a new graduate to be better trained than a postdoc that has recently completed a research project in the field? The only advantage that I can imagine for the new graduate is that s/he is younger and more energetic, with fewer family commitments. That is the reason the private sector often prefers to hire younger job applicants; such age preference is of course illegal in many countries, but it still happens and is difficult to prove.

 

[Mute]

By that logic, a university science department should also hire its top tier faculty on a short-term, contract basis, rather than offering lifetime tenure, yet they don't. It's not for teaching purposes either, because most of the classes are taught by grad student TA's and part-time adjuncts.

What university do you go do/department are you in? That's certainly not the case at either my undergrad or graduate university. Nearly all courses are taught by the main professorial faculty. Adjuncts might teach a course here or there, and they usually end up teaching the summer courses, but otherwise it's the main faculty. Graduate students do of course teach discussion/tutorial sections and often grades quizzes, homework and exams, but they rarely teach the main course, at least in physics. I'm really not sure how your claim is justified.

 

[nickyrtr]

What university do you go do/department are you in? That's certainly not the case at either my undergrad or graduate university. Nearly all courses are taught by the main professorial faculty. Adjuncts might teach a course here or there, and they usually end up teaching the summer courses, but otherwise it's the main faculty. Graduate students do of course teach discussion/tutorial sections and often grades quizzes, homework and exams, but they rarely teach the main course, at least in physics. I'm really not sure how your claim is justified.

Most undergrad courses do have a professor who lectures, but the bulk of the interactive teaching work is done by TA's in lab/quiz sections. Some universities rely more on their tenured faculty for teaching than others, but it does not change that fact that teaching is secondary in hiring and promoting professors. Those are primarily based on research accomplishments, at least at a research university.

Back to the original point -- research is a project-based enterprise, but that does not preclude longer-term employment for researchers, as demonstrated by the existence of research faculty appointments with lifetime tenure. Offering postdocs longer-term, more geographically stable employment is possible, if academic institutions so choose, or are induced to choose by legislation, collective bargaining, etc.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Offering postdocs longer-term, more geographically stable employment is possible, if academic institutions so choose, or are induced to choose by legislation, collective bargaining, etc.

But it defeats the whole reason postdocs are desirable. A university needs professors to set the research agenda, and to apply for grants. Those professors need skilled people to actually do the work. As soon as postdocs aren't simple low-wage migrant labor, their usefulness is reduced.

The phd system isn't designed to give scientists stable careers, its designed to push wages down to get as much science done as cheaply as possible. You're essentially saying "if postdocs weren't designed as low-wage contingent labor jobs, they'd be better." This is true, but not particularly profound.

 

[LogicX]

I did not go into science to become a banker after wasting 10 years of my life. Reading this thread is really making me consider going to med school instead. I've been thinking about it a lot lately, and if what I want to do is really a toss up between medicine and research, medicine just seems like a much better field. Or maybe an MD/PhD program.

 

[Choppy]

By that logic, a university science department should also hire its top tier faculty on a short-term, contract basis, rather than offering lifetime tenure, yet they don't. It's not for teaching purposes either, because most of the classes are taught by grad student TA's and part-time adjuncts.

Other organizations, outside academia, also serve diverse, time-limited projects but still manage to keep a permanent staff. The military never knows what war it will have to fight with what operational conditions, yet it has career officers and enlisted. A law firm never knows what cases will arise, but still manages to keep a permanent staff of lawyers and clerks. It can be done.



Why would you expect a new graduate to be better trained than a postdoc that has recently completed a research project in the field? The only advantage that I can imagine for the new graduate is that s/he is younger and more energetic, with fewer family commitments. That is the reason the private sector often prefers to hire younger job applicants; such age preference is of course illegal in many countries, but it still happens and is difficult to prove.

Sorry - I had an intricate response for you, but then my service provider hiccuped.

Anyway, the point is that I don't disagree with your idea. I just don't see how it's practical. And it will be a lot of work to convince the people who hold the purse strings to provide stable jobs when (a) the precendent is that they don't have to, (b) there is no practical evidence to suggest that doing so will have any major benefit, and (c) even the theory that it would be helpful is debatable.

 

[deRham]

Those professors need skilled people to actually do the work. As soon as postdocs aren't simple low-wage migrant labor, their usefulness is reduced.

While this makes sense in some areas of research, my impression is there are areas of research where there is very little work that can be relegated to the postdocs. I've found in mathematics for instance, it isn't at all uncommon to see a postdoc doing something nobody else in the department is doing.

I imagine there are at least some areas of theoretical physics where the same sort of remark holds.

Yet, why is the system roughly the same in that case? I don't see the benefit of having so many more postdocs than tenure-track (that is, people with a reasonable chance of remaining at the university given that their research is strong).

Why would you expect a new graduate to be better trained than a postdoc that has recently completed a research project in the field?

Exactly, I agree with this. I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but I see almost no reason not to believe this.

there is no practical evidence to suggest that doing so will have any major benefit, and (c) even the theory that it would be helpful is debatable.

If expendable labor that full-time faculty can relegate to those of lower rank is the goal, then this is true.

But in the cases where little such relegation of labor is practical, I'd presume the obvious goal to strive for is to get the most and best research output possible for the amount you pay your researchers. Perhaps it is true that those who obtain tenure at, say, MIT are so absurdly above the leagues of most researchers that there's no reason to contemplate hiring too many others.

I have heard of systems where tenure-track positions are effectively not tenure-track, since nearly nobody gets tenure, but I only hear of these much at universities like Princeton. I wonder if a better model than lots of expendable postdocs and a reasonable number of tenured faculty is to have more in the middle, and fewer at top. I think it would encourage more of the bright postdocs with good ideas to stick it out and produce lots of things. Maybe they won't get tenure, but if they aren't sent away in favor of a newbie every few years, maybe they'll stick it out longer and produce things they really couldn't have as newbies (or, for that matter, disgruntled people who walked away from academia to a different career).

After all, universities pour a lot of money into graduate students (paying tuition + for TA duties), and they offer tenured faculty significant benefits, so I can't help but wonder why there's less in between, since I've heard time and again that the in between phase produces a lot of the best research (in between when you're too old and too young to do anything impressive).