In defence of the emotional.

Over at PLT, there is quite a discussion going on a comment I made recently about a post entitled "In defence of the post-doc." Okay okay so maybe I was a little less thoughtful than I normally am when I wrote that comment.

But let's get one thing straight - I love my postdoc but I've only been in it for 1 year so I'm not a senior postdoc. My supervisor and I have a fabulous relationship - one that is collaborative, collegial, and productive. But I have friends who have not been so lucky. My comments are angry because I don't think we should paint academia as a "happy" place. We need to make sure that all aspects - good and bad are presented. Only that way can people make informed decisions.

I want to look further at the discussion because it does provide insight into the conflict that arises over and over again between those that have power and those that don't. This is reflected in the original post by PLT, the "emotionally charged" comment by yours truly, and then PLT's equally emotionally charged response.

First, I draw your attention to the language peppered throughout PLT's response to my comments. Phrases like, "A little perspective here is encouraged" or "Now we're heading into Wackyland" or "Welcome to crazy island, population 1" are just dismissive of the original points made by the commenter. As someone in a position of power, a more useful strategy would be to try and to figure out why the comments arose. Surely when you get a manuscript back from review you don't just outright dismiss the comments of the reviewer no matter how off track they may be. At some level, a reviewer highlights problem areas in a manuscript. It's really the same with blogposts.

The emotionally charged language of the comment I originally wrote comes because it gets tiring to constantly read blogposts by tenured professors, like PLT and CPP, who dismiss the valid complaints of post-docs like YFS and myself as just whining.

In that sense, yes you do all have the same ring.

If it's just whining why even bother writing a post that provides "advice" on how to have a happy postdoc experience. Even if your own personal experience was great (which I don't doubt), it's clear that you are aware that postdoc experiences do go bad. Postdocs are in a vulnerable position and many supervisors do take advantage of that vulnerability. I think it's really important to not only look at the best case scenario but also figure out how to help someone in the worst case scenario.

Now let's go back and look at the attitude taken by PLT in the original post

"...but if you are in this business to get rich you might as well leave now. Personally, I would seriously consider the pay cut to be doing just research at this stage."

Frankly, from where I stand the unstated advice here reads: Suck it up and be thankful for the priviledge of doing science.

Then in PLT's response to my comment ("If you want the priviledge of being a "scientist", you need to be accept poverty and expect to be bullied.") was

"I know that postdocs don't care what they cost their supervisor, but that has a very real impact on salary. Add to that the indirect costs to the grant, which in most places is around 50% and it looks like this 40K (salary) + 24K (benis) = 64K x 1.5 = $96K per year. That might not be a big deal if a lab has a few NIH R01s, but for an NSF funded lab, that's a big fucking deal."

You're right. It's not my problem. You are the one in a position of power and security (assuming you have tenure). Be thankful that:
a. you already have a tenure-track position or are tenured (especially given the
economic situation)
b. you have the privilege of writing grants and getting the money to do your research
c. you get to choose which bitches do your bidding.

I agree a little perspective is important. First of all a postdoc can make anywhere between $25K to $45K. I work at least 12 hrs a day, most of the time seven days a week. But let's give me one day off for good behaviour and examine my hourly wage. If I work on average 60 a week (which is what most of the postdocs I talked with work) and make $25K, I make $8/hr. If I'm lucky and I make $40K a year then I make $13/hr. Would you really take that pay cut with the knowledge that less than 20% of postdocs get a faculty position? How long would you do it for? I think it would be hard to feed a family on that salary alone. Just some food for thought.

As far as PLT's last helpful bit of advice in the original post,

"Now I know that lots of people get into situations where they feel taken advantage of or where they are stuck doing projects they don't care about. That is why it is critical to do your homework ahead of time and know enough about the supervisor whose lab you are joining to determine if you can work with them and get the mentoring you need. Don't just take a position in any lab doing something remotely close to what you like. Talk to other trainees in the lab! Talk to former trainees. Is the lab a good place to develop as a scientist? That information can be FAR more important than the project. Put yourself in a place to succeed."

PLT highlighted independence as one of the biggest complaints of many postdocs. The solution: well don't get yourself in that position in the first place, stupid.

In PLT's response to my comment about being a monkey paid a secretarial wage he wrote,

"Welcome to crazy island, population 1. First off, if someone could point to where my post would have spurred this response, I would love to know."

I think the key to understanding why my response was so frustrated was because of the misleading title of the third paragraph in the original post, "Lack of independence." Yet the body of that paragraph only addressed how to prevent the situation. No thought was given to the substance of that complaint. A lack of independence is not just a heading, it is a valid feeling of many postdocs.

Even if you happen to end up in an ideal situation that PLT describes, where there is an exchange of ideas and expertise between a postdoc and mentor, many supervisors use language that is dismissive to a postdoc's concerns or ideas. Need I go further with this?

Furthermore, most postdocs walk into a situation where a project is well-defined and we are just the hands to carry out the experiments. And frankly, if the Specific Aims of a grant are not met, then often the PI doesn't get his/her next grant. And so yes, we are left feeling like we are lab monkeys, with an hourly wage between $8-$13/hr, and whose experience and knowledge is irrelevant.

In response to my comment that I have earned the right to be considered a scientist, PLT says,

"Of that I have no doubt. That said, it's time to reign things in here a bit Entitletor. One thing that needs to be clear is that no one cares what you think you are entitled to when it comes to jobs, resources or respect. This only gets worse once you are faculty, so it's a good idea to get used to it now. "

As one of my friends, who is currently, a first time faculty said - as a postdoc you don't get the credit and recognition you deserve, as an assistant professor you generally get the credit you deserve, and as a full professor you get more credit than you deserve.

Lastly, PLT suggests that he is mentoring his postdocs because

"At the same time, I have a mentoring responsibility to help the postdoc get to where they want to go. If that is a TT faculty position, I will do what I can to prepare them for that. I've been through the transition and TRAINING the postdoc to make that jump is part of the job."

Really? Damn you must be near perfect as a supervisor. The altruism is just nauseating.

As far as I can tell one of the most important things that qualifies a postdoc for a TT position is the number of quality publications. But isn't the job of a postdoc to do the research and write up manuscripts. So outside of giving postdocs the "privilege" of doing research what exactly does that training involve? Perhaps, you help the postdoc to understand how to write grants for NIH or NSF. But do you allow postdocs to become co-PI's on grants that they write? Do you teach time-management skills? Do you have grant writing workshops? Or maybe you just let your postdocs wear your TT ring for a couple of hours a day?

Frankly, the advice PLT gave in his original post can be summed up as follows:

1. Suck it up. You get to do science.
2. Explore the world.
3. You're to blame if things suck.

With this kind of blame-the-victim "advice" no wonder the bloggosphere discussion seems like a bunch of one legged people discussing how to win an ass kicking competition. It's just not useful all the name calling.

Here is some advice of my own on getting a postdoc.