Scientist Career Path: Is It Pessimistic or Real?

[twofish-quant]

Still don't understand - ok tenure - track position gives you more money and is more "prestigious" (whatever that means) but it doesn't change the fact that being non-tenure-tracked allows you to publish papers with interesting results and do basically the same as tenure-tracked. So what's the problem? Why rarity of tenure-track positions should stop you from working in academia?

The problem is that officially non-tenure track people are supposed to be "temporary" or "supplemental." Most universities have rules that require that non-tenure track people either forced to leave after a certain time, or limit the types of work that they can do. Most of these restrictions seem to be to be somewhat irrational and really have no purpose other than to preserve the tenure system.

So what basically happens is that if you do something non-tenure track, you are agreeing that for the rest of your existence you will be a second class citizen and will take orders and have your destiny decided by people with tenure. For people that have spent their entire lives being at the 95th percentile of everything they've done, not being at the top of the class is profoundly traumatic. Since age five, your entire life has been focused on getting good grades and getting the approval of your teachers and peers. To a 28 year old Ph.D. getting tenure-track is like getting a gold star from their first grade teacher, and people in the system have often never known any other life.

Having spent a lot of the time outside the system, and also have realized that I'm not going to win at it unless I change the rules... Yes... It does seem bizarre.

 

[twofish-quant]

So it's not so much the "prestige" as it is the freedom and ability to pursue ideas without the pressure to publish.

On the other hand since the pressure to publish comes from said universities, I'm not sure this rationale makes much sense. Part of what has happened is that in order to squeeze as much work as they can out of people without tenure, universities have to promise that the beatings will end someday.

 

[Rika]

The problem is that officially non-tenure track people are supposed to be "temporary" or "supplemental." Most universities have rules that require that non-tenure track people either forced to leave after a certain time, or limit the types of work that they can do. Most of these restrictions seem to be to be somewhat irrational and really have no purpose other than to preserve the tenure system.

So what basically happens is that if you do something non-tenure track, you are agreeing that for the rest of your existence you will be a second class citizen and will take orders and have your destiny decided by people with tenure. For people that have spent their entire lives being at the 95th percentile of everything they've done, not being at the top of the class is profoundly traumatic. Since age five, your entire life has been focused on getting good grades and getting the approval of your teachers and peers. To a 28 year old Ph.D. getting tenure-track is like getting a gold star from their first grade teacher, and people in the system have often never known any other life.

Having spent a lot of the time outside the system, and also have realized that I'm not going to win at it unless I change the rules... Yes... It does seem bizarre.

So in other words: no tenure no independent research and being lab monkey right?

 

[Choppy]

So in other words: no tenure no independent research and being lab monkey right?

Not necessarily. It's more like no tenure, no security. Being a post-doc doesn't mean that you're a slave who answers to the whims of the project leader - necessarily. I had a fair amount of freedom while I was working as a post-doc. The hardest part is that it's a contract position and so after 2 years, or however long you sign on for, there's no guarantee that you'll stay in the same place.

 

[twofish-quant]

So in other words: no tenure no independent research and being lab monkey right?

Not really. From a *research* standpoint post-doc's and research scientists are quite independent and can do anything that tenured faculty can. The lack of power that post-doc's have is primarily administrative (i.e. you are on a temporary contract so when people think about what the department is going to be like in ten years, no one really cares what you think and you probably won't get the nice office).

Research scientists are in a different situation. Research scientists can (and do) basically do everything tenured faculty do. It's just that you name will likely not be there when they decide who to name to be department head, and you aren't going to be in the key admissions and policy committees.

Curiously, I think the system stinks precisely *because* non-tenured people has as much competent and authority as the tenure-track people. If you look at things meritocratic standpoint, there really is no reason that post-doc ought to have less power or voice in departmental affairs than senior tenured faculty because in a lot of situations they are doing basically the same work.

 

[twofish-quant]

The hardest part is that it's a contract position and so after 2 years, or however long you sign on for, there's no guarantee that you'll stay in the same place.

And in fact there is a guarantee that you *won't* stay in the same place. There are limits both formal and informal, on how long a department will let you stay around as a post-doc. This can be quite annoying if you have a family.

One problem with academia is that there isn't a variety of employers in one place. If you lose your job at Big Computer Company A, there are usually other companies in that city that you can move to so you don't have to sell the house and move the kids. With universities if you leave Big State, then you have to migrate, and you have no choice as to where you can migrate to,

I think that one difficulty in getting the system to admit that most Ph.D. are not going to be tenure track is this involve admitting that tenure no longer really exists as a system.

There is one other really weird part of academic hiring is that when one spouse gets hired in a tenure-track position, it's customary for the university to provide a comparable position to their spouse, even if the spouse is an academic in a totally unrelated department. The thing about tenure positions is that it's usually feast or famine, and if you get an offer from one university, you'll likely get one from others, and then one that makes life easiest for your family is the one you are likely to take.

Also if one spouse has tenure, there usually quite a lot of pressure for the university to grant tenure to the other spouse, because there is a good chance that if the university person A has to move to find a job, person B will also move.

One weird part about this system is that one academic party game that people play is "who did the university really hire?" Sometimes it's quite hard to figure out. Sometime it's not...

One bizarre realization that I had was the only real chance that I ever had of getting a tenure track position was to have slept with the right people. Eeeewwwwww!

 

[Rika]

Not really. From a *research* standpoint post-doc's and research scientists are quite independent and can do anything that tenured faculty can. The lack of power that post-doc's have is primarily administrative (i.e. you are on a temporary contract so when people think about what the department is going to be like in ten years, no one really cares what you think and you probably won't get the nice office).

Research scientists are in a different situation. Research scientists can (and do) basically do everything tenured faculty do. It's just that you name will likely not be there when they decide who to name to be department head, and you aren't going to be in the key admissions and policy committees.

Curiously, I think the system stinks precisely *because* non-tenured people has as much competent and authority as the tenure-track people. If you look at things meritocratic standpoint, there really is no reason that post-doc ought to have less power or voice in departmental affairs than senior tenured faculty because in a lot of situations they are doing basically the same work.

So basically non tenured-track is better because you don't have to do paperwork and struggle for power, you just can focus on your research, right? And you still have enough money to live, right? So what's wrong with that? Even if you won't become a head of a dep. it's irrelevant because ppl do phd not because they want a power but because they want to do research. If a tenure-track position won't make you more idependant or won't give you a better position in research what's the point in fighting over it? I don't know if I understand correctly but only a post-doc is a temporary position. A research scientist position can be a permanent one, right?

 

[scout6686]

This forum rocks. Right now I'm getting paid for programming in C++and doing property management. I'm waiting a year before going to grad for 'Mathematical Computations' at UCLA. Saving some money.

Academia doesn't seem as fun in general; I want some variation in my experience.

It seems like a great path but doesn't seem to be as efficient for nice living unless you've already achieved something.