What is so bad about the post-doc lifestyle anyway?

[Lavabug]

Working at 40k all your life you won't have a sound retirement plan especially with inflation being pretty much a constant occurrence. I suppose you would have social security retirement benefits but who knows how long that will last in this political landscape and the realities of an increasing amount of seniors and a diminishing amount of employed young adults combined with a political apathy over young adults being employed in a decent job.

Pay for PhD's in industry and professors needs to be high because to save an equal amount for retirement to those employed post bachelors you need to make more money and save it (that is how compounded interest works).

Let's be clear here: I didn't equate or fix the definition of a middle class salary to 40k. In some parts where the cost of living is not very high, it is a very high wage. Well above the per capita income for most states (and about 20% below the national median household income) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_per_capita_income

 

[Lavabug]

I figure if you live somewhat modestly, it costs the mature single adult (living alone) a 100 dollar bill just to wake up in the morning. (mortgage, gas bill, electricity, internet, hospitalization insurance, tv cable, car payment, car insurance, car gas, credit card payment, toiletries, food and let's not forget about going out to dinner and drinks...big bucks. Then there are those little unexpected expenses that seem to creep in each month as well.

Multiply that by 365 days and you get $36,500 to wake up each year. That's net, so it actually costs roughly $50,000 gross just to break even. Throw in expensive wife and kids and you are way under water. If your wife is money maker...bonus!

The problem is that your concept of "modest living" is pretty warped. Having a mortage, cable, the latest phone with a massive data plan, credit card debt for most likely commodities and not necessities, a brand new car lease and going out to dinner regularly is NOT modest living by any standards. Plenty of people in the West (and many more elsewhere) do without these things and do just fine, manage to get their children into school, and grow old and healthy into their 70's (US is probably the exception because of its healthcare system, but that's another story) .

 

[psparky]

The problem is that your concept of "modest living" is pretty warped. Having a mortage, cable, the latest phone with a massive data plon, an brand new car lease and going out to dinner regularly is NOT modest living by any standards. Plenty of people in the West (and many more elsewhere) do without these things and do just fine, manage to get their children into school, and grow old and healthy into their 70's.

Warped, perhaps. But the things I describe would be normal to most Americans I would think. What I described is middle class. Just a matter of differing opinion.

I just know that the worst part of my life is when I made 40K out of school. Could never afford anything, just the bare minimums. Not having money just plain stinks.

 

[Lavabug]

Warped, perhaps. But the things I describe would be normal to most Americans I would think. What I described is middle class. Just a matter of differing opinion.
.

Right, it is normal for most Americans (in fact, what you're describing is fairly conservative to what I'm used to hearing). The issue is that most Americans have a very inflated idea of what 'baseline' comfortable living consists of, as the articles I posted strongly indicate. I think most people need to take a long hard look at the rest of their community (nationwide, that's not asking for much) and how they're doing to realize just how ridiculously entitled they are coming across. You belong to the top 10-15% most prosperous, healthiest and longest-living piece of the world population in great part thanks to being born into it, act like it.

 

[analogdesign]

You belong to the top 10-15% most prosperous, healthiest and longest-living piece of the world population in great part thanks to being born into it, act like it.

What does "act like it" mean to you in this context?

 

[-Dragoon-]

Wow, this thread blew up so quickly.

Institutions occasionally have "research staff member" positions which tend to go to people who are good researchers but exceptionally awful at teaching classes or have absolutely no interest in teaching even if it means not being a professor.

Except they're official titles clearly state "post-doctoral researcher" on their website and their curriculum vitae suggests they've been doing this for 15+ years.

Stanford limits postdoc positions to 5 years. http://postdocs.stanford.edu/admin/how-to/reappointments.html

Yale limits postdoc positions to 6 years. http://postdocs.yale.edu/faculty/reappointing-postdoc

See also http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/component/content/article/51-npa-advance-/410-advance-clearinghouse-oversight : "Establish limits for total time as a postdoc".

This is interesting, thanks. However, I'd like to see something more concrete (if possible) along the lines of a nationwide policy. I'm not based in the U.S, nor have any interest in ever working in the U.S, but it seems here in my country that there exists no such policy and that people can make careers of being post-docs. It's not exactly surprising Stanford and Yale have no interest in perpetual post-docs, as the kinds of people who are perpetual post-docs (most physicists) would have absolutely no chance in getting a post-doctoral position at Yale or Stanford even if they just finished their PhD.

 

[psparky]

What does "act like it" mean to you in this context?

It's true that if you are American and have a good education and job...you are very lucky compared to the rest of the world. Actually, you are very lucky even compared to the average American.

40K is probably decent in other parts of world. In USA...you are going to struggle at that rate. You may be able to get what you need, but rarely what you want. I suppose there is nothing wrong with struggling...life seems to be designed in this fashion in the first place.

Oh wait, I forgot the single most popular expense in USA...no one and I mean no one can live without a smart phone with unlimited internet/text! Add another $100 per month for that!

 

[atyy]

This is interesting, thanks. However, I'd like to see something more concrete (if possible) along the lines of a nationwide policy. I'm not based in the U.S, nor have any interest in ever working in the U.S, but it seems here in my country that there exists no such policy and that people can make careers of being post-docs. It's not exactly surprising Stanford and Yale have no interest in perpetual post-docs, as the kinds of people who are perpetual post-docs (most physicists) would have absolutely no chance in getting a post-doctoral position at Yale or Stanford even if they just finished their PhD.

You can google the term limits in other places. But the more important point to be made, although I don't have hard data, is that Jesse73's point with which Locrian agreed, that you cannot be an eternal postdoc is generally true - even without a formal limit, most people will not hire someone for a third or fourth postdoc.

There is no such thing as being an eternal postdoc. After a few postdocs nobody is going to offer you a post doc. A post doc is supposed to a stepping stone to prove yourself for a junior faculty position. The idea is to have someone who is good enough to become faculty do some work of that level for you before he/she gets a junior faculty position. If after a few postdocs you can't get a junior faculty position you will have just proven yourself as a very mediocre postdoc.

Can we establish that you can't do a post doc forever. At some point you are going to need to get a permanent research position like "staff member" or the few research only professorships. If you can't get those than you are going to get squeezed out.

I think we already have established that.

 

[-Dragoon-]

It sounds like you've made up your mind, Dragoon. That's cool, go for it.

I'm still weighing my options, but right now it's looking like that's the path I'll take.

You'll be a very highly trained individual working for peanuts and virtually no benefits. Hopefully you'll choose an area of research that benefits society and/or mankind. I appreciate the benefits that science can provide, and you'll be providing them on the cheap. That's good for me, and if you enjoy it, then I guess everyone wins.

Highly trained is really a subjective term. History PhD's, for example, are equally as "highly trained" and yet no one thinks they are getting a raw deal if they have to be a perpetual post-doc for the rest of their career. Personally, I'm glad society can see value in scientific research beyond irrelevant practical applications, and the things I'm interested in will NOT ever give way to any sort of practical application. It wasn't always like this and once upon a time only those who were wealthy could pursue scientific research on a full-time basis.

Personally, I couldn't do it. I, too, don't need much in the way of stuff (though I do appreciate having a family). It's the unfairness that would get to me. You'll be making 1/3rd of what other people with similar educational investments make. While they fight off recruiters, you'll be begging for a job every few years. They'll be promoted, you'll be a perpetual postdoc. They'll be putting away 50% of your pay into their 401k, and still enjoying amenities that you can't afford.

That's quite understandable. I respect the fact that this a sacrifice for many people and that such a lifestyle would simply not appeal to most. I myself don't tend to compare myself with other people or how they're doing, but even if I did, I'd say a lifetime salary of 35-40K would still have me doing a lot better than my childhood peers. You might think 35-40K is peanuts, but to many of us, it is considered a very decent salary compared to what we grew up on.

 

[Lavabug]

What does "act like it" mean to you in this context?

Perhaps a bad choice of words on my part. Something along the lines of "stop whining" and realize how incredibly cozy your life is! It's borderline insulting to the people who don't have that kind of wealth and comfort.

That's quite understandable. I respect the fact that this a sacrifice for many people and that such a lifestyle would simply not appeal to most. I myself don't tend to compare myself with other people or how they're doing, but even if I did, I'd say a lifetime salary of 35-40K would still have me doing a lot better than my childhood peers. You might think 35-40K is peanuts, but to many of us, it is considered a very decent salary compared to what we grew up on.

Out of curiosity: what part of the US did you grow up in and what did/do your parents for a living? Edit: Nevermind, I missed half of your post. Time for new glasses...

 

[-Dragoon-]

You can google the term limits in other places. But the more important point to be made, although I don't have hard data, is that Jesse73's point with which Locrian agreed, that you cannot be an eternal postdoc is generally true - even without a formal limit, most people will not hire someone for a third or fourth postdoc.

Again, unless there's a hard rule that you can cite in the funding agencies or something else, this argument is turning into "my anecdotal evidence vs yours". I've already stated that there are several real life counter examples I know to your hard "rules", but I'd definitely be interested in some data if you can provide it.

It also seems incredibly ridiculous if true, which is why I'm skeptical. A post-doc is paid a pittance compared to what anyone in academia earns, despite the fact that they are often more productive and overworked than the academics. You can't honestly expect me to believe without any data that an academic will refuse to fund a seasoned and experienced post-doc that is producing decent work? If that really is the case, then that's truly a terrible state of affairs. Basically, even the proverbial actor that is trying to break into the industry has better job prospects in their field than a physicist with many post-docs under their belt. I hope that puts my skepticism into perspective.

 

[Lavabug]

Again, unless there's a hard rule that you can cite in the funding agencies or something else, this argument is turning into "my anecdotal evidence vs yours". I've already stated that there are several real life counter examples I know to your hard "rules", but I'd definitely be interested in some data if you can provide it.

It also seems incredibly ridiculous if true, which is why I'm skeptical. A post-doc is paid a pittance compared to what anyone in academia earns, despite the fact that they are often more productive and overworked than the academics. You can't honestly expect me to believe without any data that an academic will refuse to fund a seasoned and experienced post-doc that is producing decent work? If that really is the case, then that's truly a terrible state of affairs. Basically, even the proverbial actor that is trying to break into the industry has better job prospects in their field than a physicist with many post-docs under their belt. I hope that puts my skepticism into perspective.

There probably isn't a cold hard rule against it that is pervasive at most institutions, but people have already posted a few examples of rules like it at institutions (check the last page). You are right in being skeptical.

I've seen some research fellowships for PhD graduates (essentially post-doc funding) have a limit on the "age" of your degree, which basically amounts to a 5-6 year rule. In some other countries where age discrimination has not been formally eradicated, I've also seen a number of postdoc job offerings that had explicit age requirements, which again has the effect of weeding out people who spent too long on the post-doc market (plus anyone who started their studies late).

So maybe it's not intentional, but the way the system is set up, you are very unlikely to work as a post-doc eternally. Something along the way will put a stop to that. Ie: personal life considerations, lack of opportunity/loss of funding, getting barred from fellowships, or happier outcomes like getting promoted to non tenure positions like 'research scientist/associate' or something better.

 

[-Dragoon-]

There probably isn't a cold hard rule against it that is pervasive at most institutions, but people have already posted a few examples of rules like it at institutions (check the last page). You are right in being skeptical.

I'm not at all surprised that Stanford and Yale have such hard limits, they probably look down on anyone who completes their PhD later than age 22 and would not ever give such a person a post-doc. This doesn't seem to be the case at all at mid-tier research universities and even low-tier or the liberal arts colleges. That's why I'd be more interested in some kind of nationwide policy and not just the individual policy of a few schools.

I've seen some research fellowships for PhD graduates (essentially post-doc funding) have a limit on the "age" of your degree, which basically amounts to a 5-6 year rule. In some other countries where age discrimination has not been formally eradicated, I've also seen a number of postdoc job offerings that had explicit age requirements, which again has the effect of weeding out people who spent too long on the post-doc market (plus anyone who started their studies late).

Which countries, if you don't mind me asking? It seems to me that this sort of thing is only prevalent in the U.S, while in the UK and Canada, people in their 50s still doing post-docs is rather a common occurrence. I myself am in Canada, and know plenty such examples of people at my school who must have been doing post-docs for the past 15 years at the very least.

So maybe it's not intentional, but the way the system is set up, you are very unlikely to work as a post-doc eternally. Something along the way will put a stop to that. Ie: personal life considerations, lack of opportunity/loss of funding, getting barred from fellowships, or happier outcomes like getting promoted to non tenure positions like 'research scientist/associate' or something better.

The unfortunate likelihood of someone getting promoted to "research scientist/associate" seems to me be about the same for someone getting a tenure-track position. Again, this restriction (assuming it is a hard restriction) makes very little sense. It would be one thing if it was incredibly difficult to fund post-docs if they were demanding high salaries, but that is obviously not the case. It would then seem to be there is an incredible disdain for average or decent physicists as they are not at all tolerated. If that is indeed the case, then one can say academic physics is more like the entertainment industry where only the top 10% or so strike it big and the other 90% are eventually forced out.

I really need to know for sure that this is indeed the case and not just some rule used only by a handful of institutions. Salary is not important to me, but job security is, and if I have worse job security in physics than someone trying to break into the entertainment industry, that would probably be enough for me to decide against going to graduate school.

 

[Lavabug]

Which countries, if you don't mind me asking? It seems to me that this sort of thing is only prevalent in the U.S, while in the UK and Canada, people in their 50s still doing post-docs is rather a common occurrence. I myself am in Canada, and know plenty such examples of people at my school who must have been doing post-docs for the past 15 years at the very least.

Chile, Mexico, and Spain (my home country). Both post-docs and tenured positions had explicit age discrimination in their advertisements (not all, but most), the cut-off age was 35.

As for some early career scientist fellowships, some I've read about in the EU place a limit on 5-6 years upon having completed the PhD, but I guess that doesn't count as it's not a 'job'.

In the US, the law against explicit age and racial discrimination in hiring is pretty firm. It still happens of course, but you won't see it explicitly in a job advertisement.

 

[analogdesign]

I'm not at all surprised that Stanford and Yale have such hard limits, they probably look down on anyone who completes their PhD later than age 22 and would not ever give such a person a post-doc. This doesn't seem to be the case at all at mid-tier research universities and even low-tier or the liberal arts colleges. That's why I'd be more interested in some kind of nationwide policy and not just the individual policy of a few schools.

I work for a United States National Laboratory. In the DOE National Lab system, there is a hard limit of 5 years total postdoc. (meaning if you do two years at Stanford you can only do three years at the Lab). The job category "postdoc" is very rigidly defined. There are a couple of "perpetual postdoc" type positions here and there (such as "Project Scientist" which has a five-year limit) but they are the exception, not the rule. In my experience after 5 years of postdoc you get a tenure-track (called "career-track" in the National Labs) job or you go into industry (and probably make a LOT more money).

The real issue isn't the pay, it's the delta between postdoc and engineer-in-industry pay. It can easily be 50% difference for in some cases very similar work. But pay is just one of the factors to consider. There are a lot of benefits you can get in a postdoc (such as type of work, and work environment) that are harder to get in industry. As long as you know how you personally weigh various factors you won't get bitter.

 

[atyy]

Again, unless there's a hard rule that you can cite in the funding agencies or something else, this argument is turning into "my anecdotal evidence vs yours". I've already stated that there are several real life counter examples I know to your hard "rules", but I'd definitely be interested in some data if you can provide it.

It also seems incredibly ridiculous if true, which is why I'm skeptical. A post-doc is paid a pittance compared to what anyone in academia earns, despite the fact that they are often more productive and overworked than the academics. You can't honestly expect me to believe without any data that an academic will refuse to fund a seasoned and experienced post-doc that is producing decent work? If that really is the case, then that's truly a terrible state of affairs. Basically, even the proverbial actor that is trying to break into the industry has better job prospects in their field than a physicist with many post-docs under their belt. I hope that puts my skepticism into perspective.

Of course it's not a hard and fast rule. Even if you get a faculty position, do Nobel Prize worthy work, you may be forced to leave academia by lack of funding and by some chain of circumstances end up having a job as a shuttle driver (see Doug Prasher). But if you want to stay in academia, planning to do an eternal postdoc is simply not a plan, even if that's what you end up doing. In general you need a position as faculty or research staff. You may have the opportunity to be involved in stellar work as a postdoc, and of course you should take it, if you can afford it. But keep an eye out for a chance to develop marketable skills - no one can say what the exact mix is - if you are working on a great non-marketable project then perhaps developing marketable skills will be too much of a distraction from important work. Also, you should not forget that non-academic work also benefits mankind, and good work there also requires honesty, integrity, industry, foresight, creativity etc.

 

[-Dragoon-]

I work for a United States National Laboratory. In the DOE National Lab system, there is a hard limit of 5 years total postdoc. (meaning if you do two years at Stanford you can only do three years at the Lab). The job category "postdoc" is very rigidly defined. There are a couple of "perpetual postdoc" type positions here and there (such as "Project Scientist" which has a five-year limit) but they are the exception, not the rule. In my experience after 5 years of postdoc you get a tenure-track (called "career-track" in the National Labs) job or you go into industry (and probably make a LOT more money).

That doesn't surprise me at all. From what I've read, national lab post-docs and positions are just as competitive as those at the top institutions, so it's not exactly a revelation that they have similar policies. Fortunately, this problem doesn't seem to exist at all in even in the major research universities in this country, so it's not much of an issue for me.

But even if that were the case, it would seem to me that the vast majority of the people doing post-docs leave academia by their own choice and not because they were "forced" out like some people on here are suggesting. It shouldn't be too difficult to cover the relative pittance that is a post-doc's salary, and it really boggles the mind if academics would outright refuse to keep on experienced people who are willing to work 60 hours a week and produce decent work at a very low cost. It almost seems like it's done more out of spite rather than a lack of funds, assuming this is actually the case.

The real issue isn't the pay, it's the delta between postdoc and engineer-in-industry pay. It can easily be 50% difference for in some cases very similar work. But pay is just one of the factors to consider. There are a lot of benefits you can get in a postdoc (such as type of work, and work environment) that are harder to get in industry. As long as you know how you personally weigh various factors you won't get bitter.

Unfortunately, I have absolutely zero interest in industry or practical applications. Personally if I can't remain in academia as a perpetual post-doc, then that's the end of the line as far as a STEM career is concerned. Personally, I'd rather be working in a ditch or being a car mechanic than using my physics knowledge to make someone a lot of money, no offense to the people who do that sort of thing. Besides, I'm pretty sure that feeling is mutual and that industry has no use for someone who's research interests are primarily along the lines of esoteric fields such as numerical/computational high energy physics and astrophysics.

 

[analogdesign]

But even if that were the case, it would seem to me that the vast majority of the people doing post-docs leave academia by their own choice and not because they were "forced" out like some people on here are suggesting. It shouldn't be too difficult to cover the relative pittance that is a post-doc's salary, and it really boggles the mind if academics would outright refuse to keep on experienced people who are willing to work 60 hours a week and produce decent work at a very low cost. It almost seems like it's done more out of spite rather than a lack of funds, assuming this is actually the case.

First off a postdoc isn't all that much cheaper than a staff member. The take-home salary of a postdoc is a few 10s of thousands less than a career position but all the overhead and benefits and insurance and so on are roughly equal. So the difference in cost to a grant isn't more than 20% max. So it isn't the money. The issue is that postdocs are paid through individual grants not department monies. Many grants (especially NSF) include earmarked money for "training" which is used to pay postdocs. If you have someone who has been a postdoc for 10 years it is not reasonable to consider this person "training". This person is a de facto employee. Therefore, it becomes difficult to justify their salary to the funding agencies. This is just the way it is.

Unfortunately, I have absolutely zero interest in industry or practical applications. Personally if I can't remain in academia as a perpetual post-doc, then that's the end of the line as far as a STEM career is concerned. Personally, I'd rather be working in a ditch or being a car mechanic than using my physics knowledge to make someone a lot of money, no offense to the people who do that sort of thing. Besides, I'm pretty sure that feeling is mutual and that industry has no use for someone who's research interests are primarily along the lines of esoteric fields such as numerical/computational high energy physics and astrophysics.

Personally I think you're selling yourself short. I've worked in academia and industry and frankly the most mind-blowingly advanced stuff I worked on was maximum likelihood detectors for multi-mode fiber communications in industry. Now I work on HEP and Energy Science projects and I love it but the most advanced work is done in industry these days. Shouldn't the focus be on the work? You can do amazing things in industry just as in academia. On the one hand you say "All I care about is the work, the pay doesn't matter". Then you say "Externalities are critical, the work is secondary". So which is it?

 

[-Dragoon-]

First off a postdoc isn't all that much cheaper than a staff member. The take-home salary of a postdoc is a few 10s of thousands less than a career position but all the overhead and benefits and insurance and so on are roughly equal. So the difference in cost to a grant isn't more than 20% max. So it isn't the money. The issue is that postdocs are paid through individual grants not department monies. Many grants (especially NSF) include earmarked money for "training" which is used to pay postdocs. If you have someone who has been a postdoc for 10 years it is not reasonable to consider this person "training". This person is a de facto employee. Therefore, it becomes difficult to justify their salary to the funding agencies. This is just the way it is.

That's strange. I was always under the impression that post-docs make anywhere from 30-40K with no benefits, insurance, coverage, etc. which is why it seems like a bad deal to many on here. I suspect the above applies only to post-docs done at national labs, which is likely as competitive as those done at top institutions. The typical post-doc has no such benefits. Also, can you expand more on the "career" position? I imagine they're as competitive as tenure-track positions at most universities?

Personally I think you're selling yourself short. I've worked in academia and industry and frankly the most mind-blowingly advanced stuff I worked on was maximum likelihood detectors for multi-mode fiber communications in industry. Now I work on HEP and Energy Science projects and I love it but the most advanced work is done in industry these days. Shouldn't the focus be on the work? You can do amazing things in industry just as in academia. On the one hand you say "All I care about is the work, the pay doesn't matter". Then you say "Externalities are critical, the work is secondary". So which is it?

The projects may be interesting, but the research freedom I desire can only be found in academia. In industry, where everything is driven by profit margins, one is forced to research only those things and phenomenon that will give rise to immediate practical application. Unfortunately, the types of topics I tend to find interesting are hopelessly impractical nor can any technology ever be derived from it. That's the main problem.

 

[analogdesign]

That's strange. I was always under the impression that post-docs make anywhere from 30-40K with no benefits, insurance, coverage, etc. which is why it seems like a bad deal to many on here. I suspect the above applies only to post-docs done at national labs, which is likely as competitive as those done at top institutions. The typical post-doc has no such benefits. Also, can you expand more on the "career" position? I imagine they're as competitive as tenure-track positions at most universities?

Well at the National Labs and the University of California (about which I have specific knowledge) postdocs get benefits and insurance and so on. I imagine at most top schools that is the same but I'm also sure you're right that plenty of them that don't. I suppose it depends on institution to institution. At the National Labs at least postdocs aren't much cheaper than staff, although that may be different at some universities. I don't know.

A career position at a National Lab is essentially equivalent to a tenure-track position at a university. One key difference is you don't have to teach. You do have to mentor students however (it is one of the aspects you will get evaluated on). In HEP and Astro the National Labs tend to work on large-scale projects so that can be very interesting.

 

[ModusPwnd]

The projects may be interesting, but the research freedom I desire can only be found in academia. In industry, where everything is driven by profit margins, one is forced to research only those things and phenomenon that will give rise to immediate practical application. Unfortunately, the types of topics I tend to find interesting are hopelessly impractical nor can any technology ever be derived from it. That's the main problem.

Your research freedom is still limited by what you can get grants for. When I was doing research we would have to highlight practical applications to keep the grants coming. What I found was that the "freedom" offered by academic research was not as free as you might think.

The only way to have complete freedom in your research is to be the funder, that is to be independently wealthy.

 

[analogdesign]

Your research freedom is still limited by what you can get grants for. When I was doing research we would have to highlight practical applications to keep the grants coming. What I found was that the "freedom" offered by academic research was not as free as you might think.

The only way to have complete freedom in your research is to be the funder, that is to be independently wealthy.

In HEP (where the OP works) you don't have to highlight practical applications (because there are none) but you do have to explain clearly how your research fits into the established national (or international roadmap). For example, is it addressing open questions in the intensity frontier, the cosmic frontier, or the energy frontier? Are there synergies with existing research? Is it trendy enough (but not too trendy?). Like everything else it's political and you've got to sell yourself and your ideas.

 

[jesse73]

Again, unless there's a hard rule that you can cite in the funding agencies or something else, this argument is turning into "my anecdotal evidence vs yours". I've already stated that there are several real life counter examples I know to your hard "rules", but I'd definitely be interested in some data if you can provide it.

Except it isn't my anecdotal evidence against yours . It is more like my anecdotal evidence plus (official websites stating stanford and yales policies that show a limit on postdocs) against your anecdotal evidence. I would be interested in a site showing these postdocs (not research staff or research professors) which have 15 year CVs.

 

[jesse73]

In HEP (where the OP works) you don't have to highlight practical applications (because there are none) but you do have to explain clearly how your research fits into the established national (or international roadmap). For example, is it addressing open questions in the intensity frontier, the cosmic frontier, or the energy frontier? Are there synergies with existing research? Is it trendy enough (but not too trendy?). Like everything else it's political and you've got to sell yourself and your ideas.

The longer you are in academia the more you realize that selling yourself can't be avoided academia or not.

 

[D H]

Except it isn't my anecdotal evidence against yours . It is more like my anecdotal evidence plus (official websites stating stanford and yales policies that show a limit on postdocs) against your anecdotal evidence. I would be interested in a site showing these postdocs (not research staff or research professors) which have 15 year CVs.

The OP is from Canada, so those citations from Yale and Stanford don't quite apply.

Except they do apply. To _Dragoon_, I suggest you do some research on time limits on postdoctoral fellowships in Canada. The results are going to be rather similar to those in the US. Canada too has time limits on postdoctoral fellowships.

Postdocs are not intended for 50 year old slackers. They are intended for freshly minted PhDs who haven't the foggiest idea about what to do after getting that PhD.

 

[ParticleGrl]

It shouldn't be too difficult to cover the relative pittance that is a post-doc's salary, and it really boggles the mind if academics would outright refuse to keep on experienced people who are willing to work 60 hours a week and produce decent work at a very low cost. It almost seems like it's done more out of spite rather than a lack of funds, assuming this is actually the case.

Given the choice between two phd researchers, both willing to work 60 hours a week for minimal salary, most employers will take the younger one. Welcome to reality. Remember- postdoc contracts are short (2 or 3 years), so what happens is that you have to fight against a horde of recently minted phds for a job every few years.

Personally, I'd rather be working in a ditch or being a car mechanic than using my physics knowledge to make someone a lot of money, no offense to the people who do that sort of thing.

This is your problem then. Do you imagine that in academia you work for just yourself? As a grad student, you do research to help further your advisers career with little expectation it will further yours, same thing as a postdoc. My experience in industry is that it has been far less exploitative than academia was- academia exploited my interest in the field and my naivety to get me to research and teach for next to nothing. My adviser's career got furthered, my school's classes got taught, and I was left approaching 30 with no career, no savings, and few marketable skills. Everyone wins but grad students.

If you'd rather do something with no intellectual demands at all than make a compromise, than should start finding someone looking for ditch diggers- postdocs make more compromises than most, they have to sell themselves to new research institutions every 2 or 3 years, which means focusing research on areas that will allow them to sell themselves.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that feeling is mutual and that industry has no use for someone who's research interests are primarily along the lines of esoteric fields such as numerical/computational high energy physics and astrophysics.

I'm a high energy theory phd who now works in data mining. If you can do numerical programming, lots of places will want you, you just won't be simulating galactic dynamics.

 

[Physics_UG]

as I mentioned, there are other non-tenure track appointments that a post-doc would be promoted to eventually such as a research assistant or a non-tenure track research professor. If a prof wanted to keep you but you have spent a long time (like 6 yrs) as a postdoc you would be promoted to one of those positions.

edit: I meant a research scientist...not research assistant

 

[-Dragoon-]

Except it isn't my anecdotal evidence against yours . It is more like my anecdotal evidence plus (official websites stating stanford and yales policies that show a limit on postdocs) against your anecdotal evidence. I would be interested in a site showing these postdocs (not research staff or research professors) which have 15 year CVs.

The academic policy of 2 of the top schools is not representative at all of the nation's institutions. Unless you can present such data, your argument amounts to little more than anecdotal evidence and I personally know of quite a few counter examples to that. Now, are they the exception? Did they get lucky? Possibly, but I don't know if that is the case and refuse to speculate until such data can be presented. It could be the case that this rule does apply in the U.S, but not in other countries.

 

[ParticleGrl]

as I mentioned, there are other non-tenure track appointments that a post-doc would be promoted to eventually such as a research assistant or a non-tenure track research professor. If a prof wanted to keep you but you have spent a long time (like 6 yrs) as a postdoc you would be promoted to one of those positions.

At all of the institutions I've worked at, permanent staff-scientist type positions were more rare than professorships. If the original poster doesn't want to count on landing a faculty position somewhere, it seems foolish to count on a staff-scientist like position.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The academic policy of 2 of the top schools is not representative at all of the nation's institutions. .

This mentions: "there is also a widespread but unwritten ‘rule’ that your postdoctoral training should not last longer than 5 years."

http://www.nationalpostdoc.org/publications-5/international-postdoc-resources/international-postdoc-survival-guide/162-postdocing-in-the-us

the entire UC system has a 5 year limit, as does the University of Illinois, all of the national labs, Stanford, Yale and Cornell. Near as I can tell, everyone here with any experience in the academic system is telling you postdocs are limited to about half a decade.

 

[-Dragoon-]

Except they do apply. To _Dragoon_, I suggest you do some research on time limits on postdoctoral fellowships in Canada. The results are going to be rather similar to those in the US. Canada too has time limits on postdoctoral fellowships.

I've been doing a little bit of research for much of the day and can find nothing. I'll be certain to ask around some of the post-docs if there is some unwritten policy that many of the members on here seem to be suggesting exists. From what I gather, so far, there is no such policy at least here in Canada and one could make a career out of being a post-doc.

Postdocs are not intended for 50 year old slackers. They are intended for freshly minted PhDs who haven't the foggiest idea about what to do after getting that PhD.

Interesting use of words. So, you would call a highly experienced, productive, and overworked research scientist that happens to be 50 a slacker?

 

[jesse73]

as I mentioned, there are other non-tenure track appointments that a post-doc would be promoted to eventually such as a research assistant or a non-tenure track research professor. If a prof wanted to keep you but you have spent a long time (like 6 yrs) as a postdoc you would be promoted to one of those positions.

edit: I meant a research scientist...not research assistant

You don't get promoted unless taking a position as a grad student is getting "promoted" from being an undergrad. You apply to another position within the institution and get hired.

A research professor position is just as competitive as any other faculty position. You do realize many professors would prefer not to teach and just do research?

 

[jesse73]

the entire UC system has a 5 year limit, as does the University of Illinois, all of the national labs, Stanford, Yale and Cornell. Near as I can tell, everyone here with any experience in the academic system is telling you postdocs are limited to about half a decade.

Another large amount of data points (13 schools + national labs) on the column for limits to years on postdocs.

 

[-Dragoon-]

Given the choice between two phd researchers, both willing to work 60 hours a week for minimal salary, most employers will take the younger one. Welcome to reality. Remember- postdoc contracts are short (2 or 3 years), so what happens is that you have to fight against a horde of recently minted phds for a job every few years.

How does that make any rational sense? Common sense dictates that the more experienced and seasoned researcher will be vastly preferred over the inexperienced beginner, as it is true in just about every other profession.

 

[-Dragoon-]

Another large amount of data points (13 schools + national labs) on the column for limits to years on postdocs.

13+ of the top schools mean nothing. It's likely that these schools have other "unwritten" rules that would seem absurd by the standards of the mid and lower tier schools, such as anyone who takes more than 3 years to finish a PhD won't be eligible for a post-doc. What I'd like to see is if this attitude is pervasive amongst schools outside of the top ones.

Also, if this really is the case that this hard limit applies to everyone, then where did this phenomenon of the "eternal post-doc" come from? You are implying that it is an impossibility, so how do people end up into these types of arrangements or do you deny the phenomenon exists at all?

Again, even if this the case in the U.S, there's a very good chance it won't at all apply to me in the first place.

 

[jesse73]

I've been doing a little bit of research for much of the day and can find nothing. I'll be certain to ask around some of the post-docs if there is some unwritten policy that many of the members on here seem to be suggesting exists. From what I gather, so far, there is no such policy at least here in Canada and one could make a career out of being a post-doc.

I suspect your research has been limited to finding evidence of no limits exclusively because typing in postdoc limits in Canada http://lmgtfy.com/?q=postdoc+limits+in+canada.

You just get many results with examples of explicit limits in the first 2 pages of results like


"three-application limit for this funding opportunity."
http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/fellowships/postdoctoral-postdoctorale-eng.aspx

Loads of age restriction for eligibility here.
http://www.ncbs.res.in/rdo/grants_for_junior_researchers

McGill 5 yr limit.
https://www.mcgill.ca/bme/prospective-students/postdoctoral-program

Queens University
http://www.queensu.ca/humanresources/policies/postdoctoralfellows.html
"Postdoctoral Fellows (PDFs) are considered to be those individuals who are designated as such by external funding agencies or those who are within five years of completion of their doctoral degree. This five year period may be delayed by circumstances requiring a break in research career, e.g. by parental responsibilities."

Scientific research is about being open to finding answers outside the hypothesis you started with.

 

[Physics_UG]

You don't get promoted unless taking a position as a grad student is getting "promoted" from being an undergrad. You apply to another position within the institution and get hired.

A research professor position is just as competitive as any other faculty position. You do realize many professors would prefer not to teach and just do research?

I'd rather have a tenure track position where I have to teach a class every other term than have a lower paying non-tenure track position where I don't have to teach, imo.

I did not think they were as competitive as tenure track positions though.

Also, jesse, different universities handle these things differently. In my expereince in a very large research group, the postdocs that were there for around 4-5 yrs or so do get promoted to non-tenure track research scientist/prof positions.

 

[jesse73]

Also, if this really is the case that this hard limit applies to everyone, then where did this phenomenon of the "eternal post-doc" come from? You are implying that it is an impossibility, so how do people end up into these types of arrangements or do you deny the phenomenon exists at all?

"Eternal postdoc" doesn't mean what you think it means. It is a colloquialism for people in their third postdoc (4-7 years in). A postdoc isn't even meant to be done twice.

 

[jesse73]

I'd rather have a tenure track position where I have to teach a class every other term than have a lower paying non-tenure track position where I don't have to teach, imo.

I did not think they were as competitive as tenure track positions though.

They are as competitive. I am sure there are people who left after postdocs who would of had no qualms taking any research position if they could even if it just makes postdoc money but is permanent.

Junior faculty gets paid around as much as postdoc so it cost the university approximately the same to have someone who will teach students as someone who will not. Which do you think the university prefers to have and therefore create more of that position for?

 

[-Dragoon-]

I suspect your research has been limited to finding evidence of no limits exclusively because typing in postdoc limits in Canada http://lmgtfy.com/?q=postdoc+limits+in+canada.

You just get many results with examples of explicit limits in the first 2 pages of results like

This is a lot of data to process, but very interesting findings and I will cede to this data, thanks. I'm going to seek out those post-docs I know and see if there are ways to get around this.

But, my main question now is: what happens to the vast majority of PhDs, then? On the surface, the obvious implication is that most are forced out of academia and that there isn't even any interest in paying them even minimum wage to work 60 hours a week to produce good research. Hence, are most of them just forced to give up and completely retrain in another career? In that case, wouldn't it be more valid to compare academic physics to the entertainment industry (where even those that are comfortably above average will languish) rather than other STEM careers where the average graduate is rewarded with a full-time position?

Also, where do adjuncts fit in this picture? My school has a few adjuncts, and I've seen them publishing a few recent papers with the tenured faculty.

 

[jesse73]

You could become an adjunct but those will likely get more competitive because the trend is toward a smaller amount of tenure track positions therefore these people will end up as adjuncts.

 

[-Dragoon-]

You could become an adjunct but those will likely get more competitive because the trend is toward a smaller amount of tenure track positions therefore these people will end up as adjuncts.

That's a secondary thought. You've still not answered the main pressing question: what happens to the vast majority of PhD's who were simply not offered a position after doing a few post-docs? As it has been established, no one can continue doing post-docs. So, what is the end result?

 

[DrewD]

But, my main question now is: what happens to the vast majority of PhDs, then?

Industry or finance. Even with just a BS in math/physics I saw tons of posts for jobs looking for specific skill OR a math/physic degree and they would teach the business skills.

On the surface, the obvious implication is that most are forced out of academia and that there isn't even any interest in paying them minimum wage to work 60 hours a week to produce good research.

If they do good research they become professors. New young researchers bring fresh ideas. Maybe in experimental research age isn't as big of an issue because there are hard skills to be learned about specific machines. I don't know much about that.

Hence, are most of them just forced to give up and completely retrain in another career? In that case, wouldn't it be more valid to compare academic physics to the entertainment industry (where even those that are comfortably above average languish) rather than other STEM careers where the average graduate is rewarded with a full-time position?

Most other STEM careers are also not in academia. Also, making $150,000 at a bank without needing any more schooling* is a lot different than being an unemployed actor/musician. Otherwise, sure.

Also, where do adjuncts fit in this picture? My school has a few adjuncts, and I've seen them publishing a few recent papers with the tenured faculty.

Adjunct is probably closer to the idea you have of permanent post-doc. But that is more competitive.

*one of my professors did this for a while when he thought he had no chance of becoming a professor. He was hired with no need for more training to work on wallstreet. He was a decent programmer and understands stochastic processes well. He still gets a check from his investments every quarter. Not the life I would choose, but this would be considered successful by most accounts.

 

[Physics_UG]

That's a secondary thought. You've still not answered the main pressing question: what happens to the vast majority of PhD's who were simply not offered a position after doing a few post-docs? As it has been established, no one can continue doing post-docs. So, what is the end result?

if you can't get a tenure track gig you see about getting promoted to a non-tenure track research position that is above a postdoc and below a tenure track PI. Or you can develop some skills that are useful to industry and go work there.

 

[Physics_UG]

They are as competitive. I am sure there are people who left after postdocs who would of had no qualms taking any research position if they could even if it just makes postdoc money but is permanent.

Junior faculty gets paid around as much as postdoc so it cost the university approximately the same to have someone who will teach students as someone who will not. Which do you think the university prefers to have and therefore create more of that position for?

Pay structure varies wildly depending on university and even depending on department within the university.

Also, the primary PI on a project is usually a tenure track or tenured prof. And I wouldn't call a research prof position permanent in the same sense as a tenured prof.

 

[ModusPwnd]

what happens to the vast majority of PhDs, then?

I think this has been addressed multiple times in this thread. They get a job somewhere else. In industry, in finance, in education, govt. labs, they do engineering or programming/modeling or they start a business. Sometimes they have to retrain a lot, sometimes they can utilize their preexisting skill set in non-science ways.

This may be an interesting read for you (Im surprised if you have not read it already);
http://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/statistics/employment/phdinitemp-p-10.pdf

 

[-Dragoon-]

Industry or finance. Even with just a BS in math/physics I saw tons of posts for jobs looking for specific skill OR a math/physic degree and they would teach the business skills.

This contradicts a lot of the information I've read on here and other places. From what I have gathered, industry is only interested in those who specialized in condensed matter experiment. They have no interest in people who specialize theory or numerical/computational regardless of the discipline, and those in high energy and astrophysics experiment seem to do pretty bad as far industry job is concerned. As for finance, I'm pretty sure they only want the people who graduated from top schools and would have been given a tenure-track position anyway seeing as that is an industry that is obsessed with academic pedigree. I have a hard time believing that the rejects of academia who graduated from a mid-tier research institution would have as many job prospects in finance as some people seem to be suggesting on here.

But even then, I have no interest in doing either and would rather work as a ditch-digger who knows a thing or two about advanced physics but would never need to use it. For some reason, that appeals to me. As long as I know the vast majority of PhDs are forced out of academia, it doesn't seem like as bad as a deal as I initially thought.

Adjunct is probably closer to the idea you have of permanent post-doc. But that is more competitive.

How much more competitive is it, though? Really, if they pay the same amount as a post-doc position and with so many PhD's scoffing at the idea of being a permanent post-doc even if they were given the opportunity, I can't imagine it is that much more competitive.

Still, I'm definitely not counting on it and if I ever get to the point where I find myself applying for post-docs, I'll like do a few just to pay off my student loans and only to eventually be squeezed out of academia and leave STEM entirely. Again, as long as this is the status quo for the majority, I have no problem with this.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Adjunct is probably closer to the idea you have of permanent post-doc. But that is more competitive.

This is not true. Adjunct positions are very easy to get, but they pay poorly and at many schools you have little-to-no interaction with the main department. You are a contract worker brought into teach one class at maybe $500 a credit hour. Its very hard to make a living wage as an adjunct.

You might be thinking of lecturer positions, but those are usually temporary as well (the local liberal arts college hired a lecturer for one year while their only full time professor was on sabbatical,etc).

From what I have gathered, industry is only interested in those who specialized in condensed matter experiment.

Industry is being used in the "anything not academia" sense. Most physics phds don't find work in (say) engineering fields.

From my phd cohort, I know two lawyers, an actuary, several software engineers,a youth minister a nurse, several people in finance, several people in insurance,an owner of a bar-and-grill near campus, and some big-data/stats people. I originally did data work for an insurance company, and now I work for a big-data consulting company. Most of those people agree that nearly nothing they learned while doing their phd has helped them, the exception being the finance people.

As for finance, I'm pretty sure they only want the people who graduated from top schools and would have been given a tenure-track position anyway seeing as that is an industry that is obsessed with academic pedigree.

Not at all true- finance wants numerical programmers and it will take them where they can get them. For sales type jobs, having impressive credentials might help, but you won't be looking for a sales job. That doesn't mean they'll hand you the job- you'll have to teach yourself enough finance to interview successfully.

There is currently a shortage of statisticians/machine learning people, so its an easy job to bounce into, if you are willing to train yourself a bit.

Again, as long as this is the status quo for the majority, I have no problem with this.

This is a strange mentality. "I don't really care what happens to me, as long as the same thing happens to everyone else?"

 

[Physics_UG]

Instead of adjunct I think DrewD means a university research scientist or research prof position. These are non-tenure track positions but can be long term.

 

[jesse73]

That's a secondary thought. You've still not answered the main pressing question: what happens to the vast majority of PhD's who were simply not offered a position after doing a few post-docs? As it has been established, no one can continue doing post-docs. So, what is the end result?

Do something else like others have mentioned. It is similar to how getting a phd in music doesn't guarantee you a job in the music industry.