So here is a link to an opinion piece in Nature News talking about how universities should stop drinking the koolaid. Instead of pretending that there are plenty of tenure-track positions to go around and throwing away good scientific talent, Jennifer Rohn thinks permanent, long-term research positions need to be made. She's talking about professionalizing the postdoc position.
Here is an excerpt,
The scientific enterprise is run on what economists call the 'tournament' model, with practitioners pitted against one another in bitter pursuit of a very rare prize. Given that cheap and disposable trainees — PhD students and postdocs — fuel the entire scientific research enterprise, it is not surprising that few inside the system seem interested in change. A system complicit in this sort of exploitation is at best indifferent and at worst cruel. I have no doubt that most lab heads want the best for their many apprentices, but at the system level, the practice continues. Few academics could afford to warn trainees against entering the ring — if they frightened away their labour force, research would grind to a halt.
An alternative career structure within science that professionalizes mature postdocs would be better. Permanent research staff positions could be generated and filled with talented and experienced postdocs who do not want to, or cannot, lead a research team — a job that, after all, requires a different skill set. Every academic lab could employ a few of these staff along with a reduced number of trainees. Although the permanent staff would cost more, there would be fewer needed: a researcher with 10–20 years experience is probably at least twice as efficient as a green trainee. Academic labs could thus become smaller, streamlined and more efficient. The slightly fewer trainees in the pool would work in the knowledge that their career prospects are brighter, and that the system that trains them wants to nurture them, not suck them dry and spit them out.
Not a new idea, but a good one. I'm guessing money is the constraint.
****
Here's something awesome for those of you who are R lovers like me. I've been using it for a couple of days and I love it. It's called RStudio and is essentially a way of integrating all those windows you use into one environment. Plus if you're like me and have a 15" laptop - it's perfect!
5 comments:
I'm guessing money is the constraint.
I don't think so. The main problem with this scheme is the lack of job security. When the PI's lose their grants, the Research Associates are out of a job and their families are in danger. The PI will survive because the system is set up to insure against the risk they take in a competitive environment. (Tenure is part of it.)
We have plenty of experience with "professional," itinerant, teachers at universities and the result isn't pretty.
Yes, but industry scientists deal with a lack of job security all the time. In most contracts, there is an "at will" clause.
If a PI gets an average of $150,000 funding, the salary for a Research Associate will make up a big chunk. Frankly, I think the reason is that students and postdocs are cheap labor.
Yes, but industry scientists deal with a lack of job security all the time. In most contracts, there is an "at will" clause.
This is true. There's a core of biotech scientists, for example, who move from one company to the next. When one place shuts down an new start-up opens.
In order to support and exploit this knowledge/skill base the industry has to offer some incentive. Typically the incentive is money&mdahs;lots more money than the starting salary for an Assistant Professor.
Current post-docs always have the option of choosing this career right now. Why don't they? It's not because of the money.
I think that Jennifer Rohn's solution is unworkable because of the money but even if we had the money (about $80-$100K per year) the jobs would still be unattractive for many post-docs.
How many people want to settle down and start a family only to find that they are out of a job when they're 45 or 50?
I agree with Larry that the lack of job security would be a major deterrent to this system. I think when one chooses industry, they're doing so with an understanding that it's a trade-off. Less job security than a TT prof but the pay generally makes up for it.
We had a research associate in my PhD lab and I often thought that if the job security was there it'd be a great job. He was given almost total intellectual freedom over his project and got to collaborate with others, etc, etc.
Worst thing about my US postdoc was the pay ....or lack of it!
Post a Comment