The Disposable Academic, from The Economist

[seeking1]

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?story_id=17723223

 

Anyone seen this article yet? It kind of spooks me regarding the value placed on PhD students these days. I know that when going into research one should not expect to be getting rich, but still....~$40000 salary after more than 5 years as a postdoc...and thats on par with a construction worker....

 

Thoughts, anybody, please.

[Karma]

A very interesting artilcle, the comments also.

 

Even though alot of the things said in the article are true, I'm still under the impression the the author has this opinion because of his/hers failed experience as a phd student.

[shikimate]

I also thought this article presented some intersting facts and arguments. I've also reposted this article in UTHub for UofT life sci students to read. Therefore I would like to thank seeking1 here for posting this article.

[leap87]

I'm a firm believer that your salary will depend on your connections, how much time you put into your degree, the quality of your research as well as the field. I got approved a couple of days ago to pursue a Ph.D. (today got my firm acceptance). You have to be smart about it and tactful. Some people just work on one project (ie their thesis) the whole 2 years (if in Masters) or 4 years (if in Ph.D.) and never branch out. It's the branching out part that counts. I have been offered 5 different projects for next semester and I sat down, thought about the projects (they all sounded very interesting) and picked the ones that best suit me and the ones I think will bring me to a better job (so, instead of picking a project that involves only one part of the body, I've branched into another part of the body - having minimal knowledge).

 

It boils down to how much do you know, WHO do you know, with whom did you collaborate, how much did you publish and if you published, was it quality over quantity (ie did your research have an impact or changed something or was your research plausible).

 

Basically, you will be stuck with the above mentioned pay IF you don't connect well. However, if you plan your moves accordingly and are a tiny bit selfish, you can go far. Most of my supervisors live pretty comfortable lives and I haven't seen any of them really complain about their salaries. But that's in my field... I wouldn't know how it is in let's say physiology.

[PhD_Candidate_2011]

http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?story_id=17723223

 

Anyone seen this article yet? It kind of spooks me regarding the value placed on PhD students these days. I know that when going into research one should not expect to be getting rich, but still....~$40000 salary after more than 5 years as a postdoc...and thats on par with a construction worker....

 

Thoughts, anybody, please.

 

I read that article on the weekend....IMO, it is 100% accurate and captures the tensions and uncertainties faced by those finishing up their PhDs (like myself) as well as early postdocs. I come from one of the top 3 labs in Canada which attracts some of the top postdocs from around the world with amazing publications. Yet, the success of landing a PI position of these posdocs is ridiculously low (less than 10% success in our lab). There are many postdocs who have been here 7+ years and have been applying for academic positions for several years with no luck. And these are postdocs from a lab where the PI is immensely respected and networked. The recent recession certainly didn't help things either (if anything, it created a backlog that will make things worse for years to come).

 

What scares me the most is the degree to which the element of luck has on one's success in academia. Intelligence and work ethics are only part of the equation and have no bearing on things like whether you get scooped and your year's of hard work will never see the light of day. It's a very very scary world for PhDs wanting to pursue academia....

[leap87]

I read that article on the weekend....IMO, it is 100% accurate and captures the tensions and uncertainties faced by those finishing up their PhDs (like myself) as well as early postdocs. I come from one of the top 3 labs in Canada which attracts some of the top postdocs from around the world with amazing publications. Yet, the success of landing a PI position of these posdocs is ridiculously low (less than 10% success in our lab). There are many postdocs who have been here 7+ years and have been applying for academic positions for several years with no luck. And these are postdocs from a lab where the PI is immensely respected and networked. The recent recession certainly didn't help things either (if anything, it created a backlog that will make things worse for years to come).

 

What scares me the most is the degree to which the element of luck has on one's success in academia. Intelligence and work ethics are only part of the equation and have no bearing on things like whether you get scooped and your year's of hard work will never see the light of day. It's a very very scary world for PhDs wanting to pursue academia....

 

What field are you in (if you don't mind me asking)?

[GLO]

how do you even gauge the top labs in canada??

 

I've been reading through your messages in the past while, and in all honesty, you toot your own horn pretty often.

 

 

 

I read that article on the weekend....IMO, it is 100% accurate and captures the tensions and uncertainties faced by those finishing up their PhDs (like myself) as well as early postdocs. I come from one of the top 3 labs in Canada which attracts some of the top postdocs from around the world with amazing publications. Yet, the success of landing a PI position of these posdocs is ridiculously low (less than 10% success in our lab). There are many postdocs who have been here 7+ years and have been applying for academic positions for several years with no luck. And these are postdocs from a lab where the PI is immensely respected and networked. The recent recession certainly didn't help things either (if anything, it created a backlog that will make things worse for years to come).

 

What scares me the most is the degree to which the element of luck has on one's success in academia. Intelligence and work ethics are only part of the equation and have no bearing on things like whether you get scooped and your year's of hard work will never see the light of day. It's a very very scary world for PhDs wanting to pursue academia....

[PhD_Candidate_2011]

how do you even gauge the top labs in canada??

 

I've been reading through your messages in the past while, and in all honesty, you toot your own horn pretty often.

 

Not sure why you thought I was tooting my own horn....perhaps a misinterpretation of my words (or perhaps I should choose my words more carefully)....either way, I certainly had no self-serving intention with my post(s)....

 

Back to your point about how do you rank labs....it's true that there's no single metric to such a ranking, but if you ask most PIs in Canada, most will tell you who are the big names in Canada (I bet most will say Tony Pawson as the top scientist in Canada). Most would list my prof in the top 3 in Canada in such a perceived ranking among scientists. This is not my opinion, but rather the general consensus in Canadian circles and the Canadian media....

 

To leap87's question, our lab is a molecular cell and biochem lab. Pretty much anything and everything about the cell is studied in our lab. I noticed you're just starting your graduate career (from your signature). I hope that economist article (and my post) does not deter you from your passion for research. I think a passion for research has to be your primary motivation for going into research-based grad school. One thing I have been involved with in my department over the last couple of years is to promote a better understanding of grad school to undergrads and the careers availabe to one after finishing grad school. I think many undergrads begin grad studies (like I did) with the false knowledge that a PhD will get them a professorship. However, this is a long and uncertain road that has to be looked at very carefully before embarking on it. I think universities (to be fair, I can only speak for UofT) do a terrible job of informing their undergrads of the realities of graduate school (with respect to career options). I'm glad to see articles like that Economist piece.

[bloh]

Not sure why you thought I was tooting my own horn....perhaps a misinterpretation of my words (or perhaps I should choose my words more carefully)....either way, I certainly had no self-serving intention with my post(s)....

 

Back to your point about how do you rank labs....it's true that there's no single metric to such a ranking, but if you ask most PIs in Canada, most will tell you who are the big names in Canada (I bet most will say Tony Pawson as the top scientist in Canada). Most would list my prof in the top 3 in Canada in such a perceived ranking among scientists. This is not my opinion, but rather the general consensus in Canadian circles and the Canadian media....

 

To leap87's question, our lab is a molecular cell and biochem lab. Pretty much anything and everything about the cell is studied in our lab. I noticed you're just starting your graduate career (from your signature). I hope that economist article (and my post) does not deter you from your passion for research. I think a passion for research has to be your primary motivation for going into research-based grad school. One thing I have been involved with in my department over the last couple of years is to promote a better understanding of grad school to undergrads and the careers availabe to one after finishing grad school. I think many undergrads begin grad studies (like I did) with the false knowledge that a PhD will get them a professorship. However, this is a long and uncertain road that has to be looked at very carefully before embarking on it. I think universities (to be fair, I can only speak for UofT) do a terrible job of informing their undergrads of the realities of graduate school (with respect to career options). I'm glad to see articles like that Economist piece.

 

I think the original comment was apt. I certainly would not put Pawson even in the top 5.

 

You are not being clear about what your metric is. If your metric is the sheer number of Science/Nature/Cell papers, then that's fairly objective and we'll give you that (if it's true). Every other metric is very subjective.

 

edit: To add to the article..I have to agree absolutely. Academe is too congested. There is far too many bachelors being given out, so it is no surprise that far too many students are pursuing further education as well. It will all become an even bigger mess soon.

[Laika]

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing!

[leap87]

 

To leap87's question, our lab is a molecular cell and biochem lab. Pretty much anything and everything about the cell is studied in our lab. I noticed you're just starting your graduate career (from your signature). I hope that economist article (and my post) does not deter you from your passion for research. I think a passion for research has to be your primary motivation for going into research-based grad school. One thing I have been involved with in my department over the last couple of years is to promote a better understanding of grad school to undergrads and the careers availabe to one after finishing grad school. I think many undergrads begin grad studies (like I did) with the false knowledge that a PhD will get them a professorship. However, this is a long and uncertain road that has to be looked at very carefully before embarking on it. I think universities (to be fair, I can only speak for UofT) do a terrible job of informing their undergrads of the realities of graduate school (with respect to career options). I'm glad to see articles like that Economist piece.

 

I'm never going to be deterred off the research aspect of my career. Even though I'm a graduate student, there are MANY options within my career to get a job and the more education you get, the better. At the end of it all, I can pick and choose as to what I'd like to do - yes, ultimately being a professor and having my own lab.

 

I don't know of how much use this will be to undergrads - but there are supervisors out there who will groom you to become a specialist in an area where there are jobs. To give an example: recently my friend went to talk with one of the biggest names in our field (he's the director of spine research in Canada). My friend, who already did his Ph.D. and wanted to do a post doc with this guy, came into the meeting thinking he wanted to do research in spine. The guy asked him one simple question: "Okay. What is your final goal?" and my friend said "I'd like to get a faculty position at this university" and the guy said "Ok. If that is the case, you have to drop spine" and my friend went ":confused:" and the guy said "There's already 2 people here doing spine... me and [insert name]... We won't be looking for a long while for people doing research in spine. HOWEVER, if you specialized in neck, I can groom you to be a neck guy and then you're one and only. Your probability of getting a job here and if you're working with me, is 95%. What do you say?" and really... it was a no brainer. So, there are people out there who will HELP you get to where you want to be.