IMHO the big problem in experimental sciences is what the article kindly describes as power imbalances. I'd call it perhaps neofeudalism.
I've seen many cases where principal investigators / professors are completely disconnected from research, including an absolute lack of any basic knowledge related to the field. They are just middlemen. For someone coming from pure mathematics, where professors routinely come up with great results themselves, this was incredibly shocking.
Those I've met who don't know much always run the same scheme. They have a few postdocs doing all work and writing all grant proposals, but never getting their names on them. They always work towards some vague promotion that never comes. Whenever they obtain any good result, the professor or principal investigator will take all credit. Usually they will get diluted quickly, by simply pushing follow up experiments to others.
Bell Labs, MRC LMB and Cold Spring Harbor were somewhat successful in preventing this kind of middlemen behavior. Among other things, they banned anyone from supervising more than 5 people. It worked.
Outside of a class, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked for any feedback about a professor, program, or department, neither as a grad student nor postdoc. If I were king of academia, I’d make this an important part of hiring and funding decisions.
Right now, individual fellowships to grad students and postdocs are scored, in part, on the “training environment” but weirdly, research grants to a professor (to hire grad students and postdocs) are not. This would be an easy thing to flip. Faculty applicants could submit a letter from a trainee as part of their package too.
For me, doing a postdoc would mean relocating regularly, my wife having to find new jobs with me (a big stress point for her), a huge amount of job insecurity, etc.
By not doing a postdoc, I’ve been able to find a permanent job that pays significantly more, buy a house, and actually start to think about starting a family, which is more important to me.
I think if you’re single and male then it’s OK but it’s not surprising for e.g. that there are underrepresented groups in some fields of science at lectureship level when they basically have to sacrifice any stability in order to get to that position. I grew up quite poor and do not want to get into that position again - and I can’t afford to not have a job gap for 4 months which is the sort of length I’ve seen friends endure while one contract ends and another starts.
I'm finishing my PhD in the next couple of months, and am fortunate enough to have a fiancée and a house. I interviewed for one postdoc and found myself hoping I wouldn't get it because it would mean living apart for a few years, or else uprooting our lives and moving across the country, only to repeat the process in a few years' time, with no guarantee of ever finding a permanent position.
I'm completely lost now, I have no job lined up and no idea what I'll be doing with my life in 3 months' time, but I do know I'm getting out. I love science, I love the research I do, but it's not a steady career. It's nice to hear someone else who feels the same way - inside the academic bubble, anything other than giving your life to the broken system is seen as failure.
On the other hand how can you become an experienced researcher if you just work in your own bubble? By spending time in other places, you see different ways of working, thinking, organization, approach to problems, focus etc.
It looks like as college has become standard that everyone "needs" or even "deserves", we are getting to the point where academic positions should also be handed out on a basis of some social distributive program.
Yes it's hard to do and involves sacrifices. But not everyone needs to do it. It's not immediately obvious that we gain a lot by opening the gates wide and accommodating any life choices to be compatible with any prestigious careers. Artists and scientists used to do this kind of traveling around and being under the patronage of various rich people or institutions. It isn't clear that making it into a steady stable job with orders of magnitude more people chipping away at it incrementally has brought proportional results at all.
If it's not for you, why not find something that is?
I postdoc'd for 4 years, then was an instructor for another 3. When I finally got out of academia, my life became so much better. So much more: money, stability, free time, choices, advancement opportunities! Research science is absolutely a broken system and you should strive to exit as soon as possible.
A long time ago the best talent from PhD programs tended to stay in academia. That was considered the “prize.” Over the last 15 years or so the tables have really turned. Not saying top people don’t stay, but I now see much if not most of the top talent continuing their careers in the private sector or elsewhere. We’re in an era where the most cutting edge and impactful research increasingly does not take place at academic institutions. Between that and the vastly different compensation structures in the private sector it’s not too surprising top people want to go elsewhere.
As someone mentioned to me recently “Success in academia is defined by publishing papers mostly read only by a few other people that define success as publishing papers. Success outside academia is defined by doing amazing $&@! that has a measurable impact on the world.”
That's a bit biased. I could argue the other extreme by highlighting the quest for truth aspect in academia, the freedom from market influence and safety to pursue wherever the interesting research takes you etc.
Contrast that with working at an adtech giant to increase measurable engagement by applying some amazing $&@! that make users addicted and miserable, your workers burned out and the upper classes even richer. Or work on some prototype that never gets in the hands of users, either because it's just a PR stunt pet project for a higher-up or it gets killed off for internal company politics reasons.
You can pick your narrative by picking which academic and industry position to focus on. You can do awesome stuff at both and be miserable at both.
The top of the top usually do both at the same time. They spend part time at a top university, but also advise top companies with top research groups.
You are confounding two things. The impact of research and the impact of the researcher.
Increasingly more research is done in publicly funded academia, not the opposite at you claim. OTOH the relative impact of individual researchers has gone down, but this is mostly due to problems being tackled being increasingly harder.
In industry you can have relatively more impact because you are not doing research but you are building things using knowledge somebody has already collected for you. Maybe that is what you wanted to say.
I’m a staff scientist and watch post docs and students get ground up into grant fodder in a regular basis. Sure there are discoveries but at what cost to our mental health?
I think there are two politically convenient roles to academia: (1) allow a country to posture about money is has to spend, case in point are EU flagships which everyone agrees is a big waste but it puts EU on the map, research wise. (2) it keeps smart, will to power people occupied far enough away from real society problems such as racism, climate change, poverty and so on, to stabilize the status quo. Imagine what would happen if people who can do 80 hour weeks churning through genetic data to generate new insights (or similar for different fields) started working in earnest on evidence driven policy change?
I think these roles are more explanatory for the funding of science than the discoveries themselves.
a) I don't think the overlap between postdocs (especially STEM) and those that would work in politics is all that high. I think the vast majority would be working in tech/industry.
b) if this were true we might expect republicans to support government funding for academia over democrats, and the opposite is true.
I don't think the claim in 2) is that they'd necessarily be in politics. It's that they might be way more productive than incentive structures currently permit.
The academy can encourage social climbing, pointless competition, and careerism to the detriment of intellectual honesty, sane policy, and good science. Academic institutions can be moral mazes just like other public or private organizations.
As for (a), I agree that a lot would not be in politics but, if you have seen it first hand, academia sucks the life and minds of out of early stage researchers in a way that other jobs do not. The salary means they are comfortable enough not to complain and no time for it anyway.
This seems to be a common misconception that the slow progress in politics (whatever that means depends on your own political compass) is purely due to the lackluster presentation and evidence finding for policy changes. If the past years have shown anything it's that preconceived notions and ideologies are very hard to change even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
I hope you'll forgive me ranting, but it's almost exactly a year ago since I left academia (was a postdoc), and I'm feeling very down about it and need to let out some thoughts.
First the positives: academia has some amazing qualities. If you "make it" (or, alternatively, until you "fail" and drop out) you'll spend most of your time working on problems that you are truly passionate about. The kind of problems that you can't stop grinding over in the back of your head anyway. You get peace and quiet and a paycheck to sit and work on those all day. To me, doing this for life is an absolute dream!! Maybe a student two help you out. And then you get to travel the world and speak to other people who are equally passionate about this or similar problems.
Yes there's teaching too. But unless you hate that, it's not a big downside. I for one enjoyed it. I've heard horror stories of the american teaching burden though, so maybe it's different if there's too much of it. And yes there's grant application pressure. Maybe I speak from too European a perspective, but I absolutely loved almost every week (every day would be an overstatement) of my 4 years as a postdoc. Every day I miss it.
But the instability was killing me. I had the kindest most wonderful boss who shielded me from most of it, and in the end gave me 4 years of peace and quiet, and would have helped me go anywhere next. But I couldn't take the repeated uprooting. I wasn't good enough for a permanent position yet, or rather - not good enough for one in a place I could possibly imagine living - and forced uprootings crush my mental state.
So I gave up.
I don't wanna sound bitter. Hats off to those who make it. Truly! But the system has become so selective for a few "types" that I worry about its health:
- Incredibly bright people. This is obviously good.
- Incredibly hard working people. This is good, to a point. Not if the norm becomes giving up your life.
- People who'll accept any terms. Not good, this is a slow march towards serfdom.
- People who are fine with complete instability. I think academia is missing out on a lot by selecting for these.
I've just accepted a semi-permanent professorship after being a postdoc for several years. I've had a handful of grants accepted and the vast majority not -- some schemes have a <2% success rate (with applications coming from the best people on the planet) and the thing that just kills me is how the 'peer review' of grants tends to be "do I like you or not". I've been outright told that unless x- or y- is on the grant, it won't get funded. And, irritatingly, those complaints are right. I'm faced with the daunting -- but exciting -- prospect of trying to somehow be one of those academics who people do not hate. I very much think that the pressures are there on both sides; they're different, but being a postdoc does just suck for everything aside from the work – I think I was on my 13th short term contract (three of them 3 months or less!) before getting a permanent post. Naturally, this post is in a different country from my friends, family, and partner. I signed the paperwork last week. It's been three days and I desperately miss my partner -- who is also an academic -- and the cat.
One (tenured) professor I knew left to go and work for his spin-out full time in industry. He told me that his belief was that academia was so bloody awful because it was a luxury: society wants you to continue to justify your existence sitting around and thinking every few years, whereas in a company, the $/€/£ is all the justification needed. I'm not sure to what extent I agree with that, but it's definitely plausible.
The best of luck to you! And remember that the grass tends to look greener on the other side. At least you're on the side from where it's pretty easy to jump the fence if you should decide to – the other way around is a different story.
> If you "make it" (or, alternatively, until you "fail" and drop out) you'll spend most of your time working on problems that you are truly passionate about.
I wonder to what extent this is correct. I heard professors saying they can do actual research only in their free time. Rest of the time is managing, administration, teaching, attending various committee and so on...
Early postdoc is probably the sweet spot for (individually) working on what you love.
As you become more senior, responsibilities start to accrete around you. You can make more progress on something, but you start to do so by supervising others and writing grants to make it happen, rather than just doing the work yourself. This can be satisfying, but can also devolve into endless paperwork.
I've heard similar stories from the US. In the European countries I'm familiar with, tenured staff certainly have time to do research. More of that research happens through student supervison than directly, perhaps, but still.
I’m currently writing my dissertation and still debating whether to stay in academia or not. I mean, even if I had not been academically unsuccessful during grad school I will get a piece of paper saying "You have a PhD" in the end. If you fail during your postdoc you are left with basically nothing. That’s a huge burden.
I have a PhD. The acquisition of that certification was perhaps the most meaningless thing of my life. Behind my Bachelor's by far. No one was really proud of me, and I only finished it because I have a problem with not finishing things. Finish it if you have it in you, cut it loose if you do not. Dr. means nothing, and no one in the real world will care either way.
Quite the opposite for me. It gave me the needed time and open-ended-ness to play around with methods and tackle problems in a way that best suited and interested me.
The things I learned during my PhD makes my bachelor’s and master’s subjects seem almost worthless.
Yes, of course one can do that and it’s probably the most reasonable strategy (as opposed to another postdoc, for example). But then, what was the point of the postdoc? I’d rather move earlier into industry. It’s ultimately a gamble.
I have what should be a relatively employable background (ML + Neuro with a smattering of biology), and yet I rarely hear from recruiters (though I would love to).
I see it the exact opposite way: 5/6 of a PhD rounds down to nothing, more or less, so you’re somewhat trapped. As a postdoc, you have a lot more flexibility to leave whenever.
I think the academic path should be compared as analogous to other “creatives” paths (eg writer, musician, artists), although probably less extreme.
People continue to do it because of the ownership of the work, the nearly unlimited potential upside from discovery, and the ability to build on serendipitous discoveries into your own portfolio.
The downside is being stuck in a bad situation in academia can be psychologically damaging and difficult to recover from.
"the nearly unlimited potential upside" is very low probability, and if people are being fully honest with themselves, they often already know before they start their postdoc whether it's going to be worth their time.
The reality is that in academia, pedigree matters, being surrounded by very smart people matters, name matters. If you don't have all of these then your postdoc is doomed to be nothing more than a mediocre-paper-mill at best. Better to get out sooner rather than later.
It's like a weighting function to your research output: (Pedigree + Name of PI) * first author CNS papers. You sure can succeed with a ton of first author CNS papers, but if you have some good pedigree and name of PI you don't need any many.
When I was a postdoc at Stanford i simply stopped showing up at the department after 9 months. The chairman later told me that i was the first one in the entire history of the department to have done that. By the way there was absolutely no pressure; they kept paying me and in fact by mistake they raised my salary to $10,000 a month. Then they called me from the payroll office to ask if I would voluntarily return it and I said yes. I did get very depressed though and I became acquainted with all night cashiers in the Menlo Park Safeway that was then open 24 hours.
Readit News
I've seen many cases where principal investigators / professors are completely disconnected from research, including an absolute lack of any basic knowledge related to the field. They are just middlemen. For someone coming from pure mathematics, where professors routinely come up with great results themselves, this was incredibly shocking.
Those I've met who don't know much always run the same scheme. They have a few postdocs doing all work and writing all grant proposals, but never getting their names on them. They always work towards some vague promotion that never comes. Whenever they obtain any good result, the professor or principal investigator will take all credit. Usually they will get diluted quickly, by simply pushing follow up experiments to others.
Bell Labs, MRC LMB and Cold Spring Harbor were somewhat successful in preventing this kind of middlemen behavior. Among other things, they banned anyone from supervising more than 5 people. It worked.
A master should be judged by the success of his apprentice just as much as his own skill.
It’s saddening to see that people are being exploited in such a direct, obvious way. And it just happily goes on?
Right now, individual fellowships to grad students and postdocs are scored, in part, on the “training environment” but weirdly, research grants to a professor (to hire grad students and postdocs) are not. This would be an easy thing to flip. Faculty applicants could submit a letter from a trainee as part of their package too.
By not doing a postdoc, I’ve been able to find a permanent job that pays significantly more, buy a house, and actually start to think about starting a family, which is more important to me.
I think if you’re single and male then it’s OK but it’s not surprising for e.g. that there are underrepresented groups in some fields of science at lectureship level when they basically have to sacrifice any stability in order to get to that position. I grew up quite poor and do not want to get into that position again - and I can’t afford to not have a job gap for 4 months which is the sort of length I’ve seen friends endure while one contract ends and another starts.
I'm completely lost now, I have no job lined up and no idea what I'll be doing with my life in 3 months' time, but I do know I'm getting out. I love science, I love the research I do, but it's not a steady career. It's nice to hear someone else who feels the same way - inside the academic bubble, anything other than giving your life to the broken system is seen as failure.
It looks like as college has become standard that everyone "needs" or even "deserves", we are getting to the point where academic positions should also be handed out on a basis of some social distributive program.
Yes it's hard to do and involves sacrifices. But not everyone needs to do it. It's not immediately obvious that we gain a lot by opening the gates wide and accommodating any life choices to be compatible with any prestigious careers. Artists and scientists used to do this kind of traveling around and being under the patronage of various rich people or institutions. It isn't clear that making it into a steady stable job with orders of magnitude more people chipping away at it incrementally has brought proportional results at all.
If it's not for you, why not find something that is?
Deleted Comment
As someone mentioned to me recently “Success in academia is defined by publishing papers mostly read only by a few other people that define success as publishing papers. Success outside academia is defined by doing amazing $&@! that has a measurable impact on the world.”
Contrast that with working at an adtech giant to increase measurable engagement by applying some amazing $&@! that make users addicted and miserable, your workers burned out and the upper classes even richer. Or work on some prototype that never gets in the hands of users, either because it's just a PR stunt pet project for a higher-up or it gets killed off for internal company politics reasons.
You can pick your narrative by picking which academic and industry position to focus on. You can do awesome stuff at both and be miserable at both.
The top of the top usually do both at the same time. They spend part time at a top university, but also advise top companies with top research groups.
I think there are two politically convenient roles to academia: (1) allow a country to posture about money is has to spend, case in point are EU flagships which everyone agrees is a big waste but it puts EU on the map, research wise. (2) it keeps smart, will to power people occupied far enough away from real society problems such as racism, climate change, poverty and so on, to stabilize the status quo. Imagine what would happen if people who can do 80 hour weeks churning through genetic data to generate new insights (or similar for different fields) started working in earnest on evidence driven policy change?
I think these roles are more explanatory for the funding of science than the discoveries themselves.
a) I don't think the overlap between postdocs (especially STEM) and those that would work in politics is all that high. I think the vast majority would be working in tech/industry.
b) if this were true we might expect republicans to support government funding for academia over democrats, and the opposite is true.
The academy can encourage social climbing, pointless competition, and careerism to the detriment of intellectual honesty, sane policy, and good science. Academic institutions can be moral mazes just like other public or private organizations.
As for (a), I agree that a lot would not be in politics but, if you have seen it first hand, academia sucks the life and minds of out of early stage researchers in a way that other jobs do not. The salary means they are comfortable enough not to complain and no time for it anyway.
First the positives: academia has some amazing qualities. If you "make it" (or, alternatively, until you "fail" and drop out) you'll spend most of your time working on problems that you are truly passionate about. The kind of problems that you can't stop grinding over in the back of your head anyway. You get peace and quiet and a paycheck to sit and work on those all day. To me, doing this for life is an absolute dream!! Maybe a student two help you out. And then you get to travel the world and speak to other people who are equally passionate about this or similar problems.
Yes there's teaching too. But unless you hate that, it's not a big downside. I for one enjoyed it. I've heard horror stories of the american teaching burden though, so maybe it's different if there's too much of it. And yes there's grant application pressure. Maybe I speak from too European a perspective, but I absolutely loved almost every week (every day would be an overstatement) of my 4 years as a postdoc. Every day I miss it.
But the instability was killing me. I had the kindest most wonderful boss who shielded me from most of it, and in the end gave me 4 years of peace and quiet, and would have helped me go anywhere next. But I couldn't take the repeated uprooting. I wasn't good enough for a permanent position yet, or rather - not good enough for one in a place I could possibly imagine living - and forced uprootings crush my mental state.
So I gave up.
I don't wanna sound bitter. Hats off to those who make it. Truly! But the system has become so selective for a few "types" that I worry about its health:
- Incredibly bright people. This is obviously good.
- Incredibly hard working people. This is good, to a point. Not if the norm becomes giving up your life.
- People who'll accept any terms. Not good, this is a slow march towards serfdom.
- People who are fine with complete instability. I think academia is missing out on a lot by selecting for these.
Rant over :-(
One (tenured) professor I knew left to go and work for his spin-out full time in industry. He told me that his belief was that academia was so bloody awful because it was a luxury: society wants you to continue to justify your existence sitting around and thinking every few years, whereas in a company, the $/€/£ is all the justification needed. I'm not sure to what extent I agree with that, but it's definitely plausible.
I wonder to what extent this is correct. I heard professors saying they can do actual research only in their free time. Rest of the time is managing, administration, teaching, attending various committee and so on...
As you become more senior, responsibilities start to accrete around you. You can make more progress on something, but you start to do so by supervising others and writing grants to make it happen, rather than just doing the work yourself. This can be satisfying, but can also devolve into endless paperwork.
The things I learned during my PhD makes my bachelor’s and master’s subjects seem almost worthless.
Can't you go into industry? You'll have a PhD + more papers done along the way in your postdoc.
I have what should be a relatively employable background (ML + Neuro with a smattering of biology), and yet I rarely hear from recruiters (though I would love to).
> even if I had not been academically successful
Sorry about that.
People continue to do it because of the ownership of the work, the nearly unlimited potential upside from discovery, and the ability to build on serendipitous discoveries into your own portfolio.
The downside is being stuck in a bad situation in academia can be psychologically damaging and difficult to recover from.
The reality is that in academia, pedigree matters, being surrounded by very smart people matters, name matters. If you don't have all of these then your postdoc is doomed to be nothing more than a mediocre-paper-mill at best. Better to get out sooner rather than later.