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

[-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.