What is so bad about these postdoc positions?

[jeebs]

what is so bad about these "postdoc" positions?

I'm in the last year of my MPhys course and now considering applying for a PhD in some aspect of physics, and I keep coming across statements like "do a physics Ph. D. and you will get stuck working postdoc positions for years". The tone is always negative when referring to these postdoc positions, aiming to discourage people from making the supposed mistake of a physics Ph. D.

What is so bad about this? Why is it not considered a positive thing, getting to carry on learning physics, doing research, getting paid for it?
Surely this is a much better alternative to finishing my education now and going to work in some boring "worker-drone"-type office job, which seems to me exactly what would happen if I didn't pursue further scientific education?
Is this some sort of conspiracy from people who already have higher physics qualifications to deter others from doing it, so that it makes them more valuable?

 

[eri]

It's not necessarily a bad thing. If you want to get a job in academia, it's pretty much expected that you'll do at least one postdoc at this point. It's a good opportunity to work with new people in your field, establish some new collaborations, and get published without having to teach yet (if that's what you want). And if you want to go into industry, they don't require postdocs there, so you can jump right in with a PhD.

But postdocs don't all pay well - while there are some national labs which can pay up to 100k a year for a postdoc, I know people making 35k as well. The average salary is probably in the mid-40's, and while that can seem like a fortune just out of grad school, move to a city and start paying off your loans and you'll quickly realize it's not. After a few years of it, it might feel like 'slave labor' again. Not that academic jobs pay a great deal more than postdocs just starting out. However, it's easier to get a postdoc than an academic job, and some people just get stuck in the postdoc cycle for years without moving on.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Postdoc positions are great. You get to focus on science exclusively for a period of time. However, they are temporary jobs, and a series of 3-year jobs does not a career make.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Post-doc positions can be great, if you have a long-term career plan that puts the post-doc in a context. Doing a post-doc "because you have to" is a bad idea. Doing a post-doc because it represents a "finishing touch" on your PhD research, or represents an opportunity to work with some really exciting people, or it gives you some skills that will distinguish you from your peers, then it can be great.

Once you get a PhD, the days of getting paid to learn things is OVER.

 

[nbo10]

Once you get a PhD, the days of getting paid to learn things is OVER.

err... you should never stop learning and hopefully you aren't working for free.

 

[alemsalem]

What about going into industry, when is having a PhD an advantage?
Personally I like the idea of having at least 2 postdoc jobs after I get my PhD to work with different people and on improving my strength in my field ,, but I'm not even in grad school now, so I wouldn't know for sure..

 

[twofish-quant]

What is so bad about this? Why is it not considered a positive thing, getting to carry on learning physics, doing research, getting paid for it?

The big problem is that it's going to be all over in six to nine years. If people could do post-docs for the rest of their lives, there wouldn't be a problem with the system, but you have to do your post-doc with the realizations that it's going to be over in ten years, and you'll likely have to do "something else."

Also if you are starting a family, then having to move after three years is a really, really big pain.

And the other problem is that there just aren't enough post-docs for all of the Ph.D.'s that are being graduated.

Surely this is a much better alternative to finishing my education now and going to work in some boring "worker-drone"-type office job, which seems to me exactly what would happen if I didn't pursue further scientific education?

More alternatives are better. The best thing I like about my job is that I get to be a graduate student for the rest of my life, and I have money in the bank so that if it all falls apart, then I've got a cushion to figure out what to do.

Also, my job is not "boring". At work, I've been angry, terrified, sad, tired, ecstatic, frustrated, and just about every other emotion. But I've never been bored.

Is this some sort of conspiracy from people who already have higher physics qualifications to deter others from doing it, so that it makes them more valuable?

There are more Ph.D.'s than post-doc's so anything that can be done to reduce the imbalance is useful.

 

[Fizex]

There are more Ph.D.'s than post-doc's so anything that can be done to reduce the imbalance is useful.

Shhhhhh... this information is classified.

 

[the_house]

As mentioned, the drawbacks of postdoc positions that are typically given are the lack of job security (you have to do job applications every 2-3 years, always with some backup plan in mind, since there is no guarantee that you will be offered another position in academia) and "low" pay.

However, it's not all bad. I have had more than one professor tell me that the postdoc years represent the best time in a physicist's life. As a grad student, there are constantly hoops to jump through on your way to getting a degree, and the pay is much lower. As a professor, you have many more responsibilities (administrative and otherwise) that take up a large percentage of your time, and which are not typically interesting or pleasant.

As a postdoc, you can spend essentially all your time doing research, traveling to conferences, meeting new people, and talking about physics. Moving to a new place every couple of years can actually be fun and exciting if you don't have a family to worry about (although I'm sure it gets old eventually). If the drawbacks don't bother you too much, it can be a fantastic experience, no matter what you end up doing afterward.

 

[Andy Resnick]

err... you should never stop learning and hopefully you aren't working for free.

That's actually not what I said at all.

 

[jeebs]

As mentioned, the drawbacks of postdoc positions that are typically given are the lack of job security (you have to do job applications every 2-3 years, always with some backup plan in mind, since there is no guarantee that you will be offered another position in academia) and "low" pay.

However, it's not all bad. I have had more than one professor tell me that the postdoc years represent the best time in a physicist's life. As a grad student, there are constantly hoops to jump through on your way to getting a degree, and the pay is much lower. As a professor, you have many more responsibilities (administrative and otherwise) that take up a large percentage of your time, and which are not typically interesting or pleasant.

As a postdoc, you can spend essentially all your time doing research, traveling to conferences, meeting new people, and talking about physics. Moving to a new place every couple of years can actually be fun and exciting if you don't have a family to worry about (although I'm sure it gets old eventually). If the drawbacks don't bother you too much, it can be a fantastic experience, no matter what you end up doing afterward.

That is exactly the way I would look at it, I want this to be true. You might not have a guaranteed job for more than 3 years but you get to see the world if you have to move around. Also who cares about pay anyway, I'm sure you would always have enough left over each month to enjoy yourself.

You say you get to spend essentially all your time doing research. I was under the impression that postdocs involved some teaching or lecturing or whatever. Is that actually the case? That is not something I have any desire to do.

 

[the_house]

You say you get to spend essentially all your time doing research. I was under the impression that postdocs involved some teaching or lecturing or whatever. Is that actually the case? That is not something I have any desire to do.

As far as I know it's not common to have a teaching requirement for a postdoc. I do know of postdocs that did some lecturing, but only because they specifically requested it in order to get some teaching experience.

 

[Ryker]

You say you get to spend essentially all your time doing research. I was under the impression that postdocs involved some teaching or lecturing or whatever. Is that actually the case? That is not something I have any desire to do.

Perhaps you confused postdocs with grad students (TA's)?

 

[jeebs]

I probably am confusing it with something else, just I remember my tutor from a couple of years ago having to leave because his position wasn't permanent, and he was one of the lecturers. I thought it was generally the case that if you worked for a university you were forced to give lectures. I'm aware of the majority of academic staff in my department being lecturers for one topic or another.

 

[deRham]

As far as I know it's not common to have a teaching requirement for a postdoc.

Are you sure? What makes you think so? I feel like lots of postdocs seem to teach, but they may be doing that for extra pay or something (although, we should keep in mind, maybe that extra pay is highly desirable).

 

[the_house]

Are you sure? What makes you think so? I feel like lots of postdocs seem to teach, but they may be doing that for extra pay or something (although, we should keep in mind, maybe that extra pay is highly desirable).

I can't say for sure, just "as far as I know". I personally don't know of a single person with a postdoc position that is or was required to teach. This includes all the postdocs at the university where I got my PhD, as well as all the people I personally know who went on to a postdoc position. (Most of these are in the U.S., by the way).

It's always possible that this isn't true everywhere, but I think it's a safe assumption that it's "not common" -- at least until someone has provided counterexamples.

Do you mind if I ask where it is that you see so many postdocs teaching?

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Are you sure? What makes you think so? I feel like lots of postdocs seem to teach, but they may be doing that for extra pay or something (although, we should keep in mind, maybe that extra pay is highly desirable).

I'm in the UK, and our postdocs have no teaching requirement, and I don't know of any that have ever offered to teach. 100% research. Lucky folk.

 

[deRham]

the_house: I come from the US, and I am pretty sure it is very common for postdocs to teach something. Admittedly they have few responsibilities compared to full professors, who typically have grad students to advise too. So yes, a postdoc does have time to do research, but it is not a pure research position to my understanding.

I think many European customs in academia may be better in some ways. For instance, I heard the US favors relatively publication-happy postdocs for positions. Well, of course quality matters plenty, but still.

 

[flemmyd]

where i am, post docs almost never teach. it seems to be alone these lines:

*spend 5-6 years getting phd. most teach discussion/lab sections. sometimes if the prof is out of town, they give a lecture or two.

*do postdoc where you focus on research/grant writing.

*get tenure track position. they also typically teach introductory graduate level classes to semi "recruit" the new grad students to their lab. the big names typically don't have that problem...

 

[deRham]

*get tenure track position. they also typically teach introductory graduate level classes to semi "recruit" the new grad students to their lab. the big names typically don't have that problem...

There are no labs in mathematics, so your department culture may be different. Perhaps this is part of the reason my experience is different from yours: maybe the source of the postdoc's funding is different when working in a lab. I have heard PhD students in fields like biology and chemistry say that their actual graduate schools are somehow not as important as the lab they work for.

Whereas perhaps employing someone to produce crazy theorems is nice, but it's preferable if they do some of the labor of teaching that must be done, else this has to be relegated to full professors, who might have to be paid more. Further, the number of full professors may be insufficient, and of course one hires a full professor due to exceptional research skill, hardly as a way to fill teaching roles which can be taken by graduate students and lower level professors and postdocs.

 

[twofish-quant]

Moving to a new place every couple of years can actually be fun and exciting if you don't have a family to worry about (although I'm sure it gets old eventually). If the drawbacks don't bother you too much, it can be a fantastic experience, no matter what you end up doing afterward.

A lot depends on the "so what do you want to do with your life" question. By the time I had finished my Ph.D, I had a wife and kids and I really hate moving, so a post-doc didn't look that attractive. Someone with a different situation would see things differently and that's a good thing.

I think what's important is to give people with Ph.D.'s real choices. If you do X, then the likely outcome is Y. You might love Y, you might hate Y, but those are the choices, and different people will make different choices.

 

[the_house]

the_house: I come from the US, and I am pretty sure it is very common for postdocs to teach something. Admittedly they have few responsibilities compared to full professors, who typically have grad students to advise too. So yes, a postdoc does have time to do research, but it is not a pure research position to my understanding.

There is no way that it is "very common" in physics, or I would know at least one person for whom it is the case. I would guess from your later post that you must be talking about postdocs in math. In physics (again, "to my knowledge"), postdocs are almost always hired from research grants and therefore are hired to do research, and only research. I wouldn't be too surprised if this is not the case for mathematicians.

Can you clarify if you're talking about math departments and, even if so, to what extent is your actual first-hand knowledge of postdocs who are required to teach?

 

[the_house]

A lot depends on the "so what do you want to do with your life" question. By the time I had finished my Ph.D, I had a wife and kids and I really hate moving, so a post-doc didn't look that attractive. Someone with a different situation would see things differently and that's a good thing.

I think what's important is to give people with Ph.D.'s real choices. If you do X, then the likely outcome is Y. You might love Y, you might hate Y, but those are the choices, and different people will make different choices.

Of course. This was supposed to be covered by by listing the drawbacks and then saying "if the drawbacks don't bother you...". The postdoc life is not for everyone, but for some people it is actually quite attractive, and it's important for people to know both the pluses and minuses.

I would note that, for some people, it doesn't necessarily matter too much "what you want to do with your life" in the long run, or what the "likely outcome" of a postdoc position is. For some people, having the opportunity to do something they love for a few years is reward enough. Even if they never get a permanent academic job and end up doing something completely different afterward, it's not necessarily a waste of time.

 

[deRham]

it doesn't necessarily matter too much "what you want to do with your life" in the long run, or what the "likely outcome" of a postdoc position is. For some people, having the opportunity to do something they love for a few years is reward enough. Even if they never get a permanent academic job and end up doing something completely different afterward, it's not necessarily a waste of time.

Well, to nitpick slightly, their long term plans do matter to them because that postdoc route at age 28 or so can derail them from starting a family, as it's significantly harder to both find someone to settle down with and successfully start a family without a stable location. Also note that around that age, a lot of people start getting more serious about being married.

So it's not that they would necessarily view it as a waste of time, but rather that they do need to take into account whether it would hurt other plans they have.

I fully agree with you of course, it's just that I still think it always comes down to "what do you want to do with your life" in some form.

Getting a PhD is itself a huge choice, because you're choosing to spend several years on something you love, and probably if wise, calling those years intrinsically valuable rather than expecting them to yield any specific outcome.