next »

[vprof]

I came accross a recent analysis of Science career prospects  published in the Scientist under the title "Are We training too many Scientists?" As they have been a number of recent posts showing dissapointment with the job search, I thought I may share this information with the forum. I bet the situation is similar or even worse in some fields like humanities.

The report suggests that only about 15-18% of life science PhDs end up in the elusive TT jobs after 4-6 years (probably this is the period for doing PostDoc), down from 25% in 1993. Other highlights include the doubling of PostDoc positions from about 4777 to 8163 in the last decade or so. The report states that "The unintended consequence of the shortage of faculty positions was longer postdoctoral fellowships as young scientists received low wages, endured little job security or respect, and delayed starting families while waiting for a job. Other postdocs and PhDs accepted nontenure track and part-time jobs to stay afloat". Here's the link for those interested in reading more details http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/24540/.

After reading this article plus other similar ones, I thought may be those of you that were not successful with the job search should not consider yourselfs as "failures". It seems that this is not a normal distribution where few people get excellent positions and few end up with nothing, whereas most people get average jobs. Rather, it looks like a bell shaped curve skewed to the right, where few people get jobs and the rest don't. Therefore, congratulations:
1. if you got a faculty position, you are among the few priviledged ones.
2. if you got an interview but no job, you may have made the upper 50% pool, may be next time will be your time.
3. if you got no interview, you had a good experience with the job search process. You are not a failure as you are among the majority!!! Try next time and if nothing works out, have a plan B.

[eugenides]

sigh.

[canadia]

I'd imagine that there are a LOT better % for humanities post-docs, depending on the position. Egyptology or Classics... not too good.

Other disciplines w/ a lot higher demand, I wouldn't be surprised if it was as high as 70-80%.

There just aren't that many post-docs available and they're highly competitive. If you get a post-doc, you're good... and you're more than likely to get a TT job.

[flyguy]

I came accross a recent analysis of Science career prospects  published in the Scientist under the title "Are We training too many Scientists?" As they have been a number of recent posts showing dissapointment with the job search, I thought I may share this information with the forum. I bet the situation is similar or even worse in some fields like humanities.

The report suggests that only about 15-18% of life science PhDs end up in the elusive TT jobs after 4-6 years (probably this is the period for doing PostDoc), down from 25% in 1993. Other highlights include the doubling of PostDoc positions from about 4777 to 8163 in the last decade or so. The report states that "The unintended consequence of the shortage of faculty positions was longer postdoctoral fellowships as young scientists received low wages, endured little job security or respect, and delayed starting families while waiting for a job. Other postdocs and PhDs accepted nontenure track and part-time jobs to stay afloat". Here's the link for those interested in reading more details http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/24540/.

After reading this article plus other similar ones, I thought may be those of you that were not successful with the job search should not consider yourselfs as "failures". It seems that this is not a normal distribution where few people get excellent positions and few end up with nothing, whereas most people get average jobs. Rather, it looks like a bell shaped curve skewed to the right, where few people get jobs and the rest don't. Therefore, congratulations:
1. if you got a faculty position, you are among the few priviledged ones.
2. if you got an interview but no job, you may have made the upper 50% pool, may be next time will be your time.
3. if you got no interview, you had a good experience with the job search process. You are not a failure as you are among the majority!!! Try next time and if nothing works out, have a plan B.

Thanks for this vprof. I wonder if the glut of post docs in the sciences is a result of the overworked (or at least expected to be) TT faculty?  Most post docs I know serve as hired help to do things that the faculty advisor has no time to do, including mentoring students and running the day to day lab duties.  So like the trend that has seen the post doc itself become a necessity for anyone pursuing a tt position, the post doc is evolving from a time when a young scientists gets a chance to strike out on their own, to a glorified lab manager position.  If I am right, it's no wonder there are more post docs than jobs, as faculty actively recruit them to run their lab, without consideration if they are a good scientist.  I wonder if there are statistics that show how many Ph.D.s get post docs in the life sciences?

[greyscale]

It's good to finally see some statistics on this. My PhD department doesn't track faculty job placement very well because almost all of us will do a postdoc when we graduate, so they can't track placement immediately. By the time we're on the faculty job market five years later, the PhD department has lost track of us...

But the silver lining is that in biology, at least, jobs in industry or at government labs are appealing and highly regarded. Tenure track is still be the gold standard, but no one thinks it's a total waste of a PhD to leave academia. Some of the highest achievers in my program have gone on to prestigious jobs in industry. This contrasts with what I've learned on these fora about PhDs in the humanities, with fewer respected opportunities outside of academia.

I'd like to know how many biology PhDs actually go on the t-t job market and don't get a job. I'm sure it's a lot, but I'm guessing it's less than 80%. (The article may address this. I can't get my library proxy to give me access to article.) I think that instead, we self-select out into industry earlier in the process. A lot of my friends started grad school thinking for sure they'd try for t-t positions but have slowly realized that the lifestyle of what they consider a "real job" appeals more (less competition, higher salary).

From my perspective, more power to 'em. They're happier and there's less competition for me.

[sciguy]

Many Science Postdocs have no intention of getting faculty jobs though - so this number is not that bad.  I would say half of the postdocs in science fields intend to get a job in industry.  Fortunately at least for Chem and Biochem PhDs there are quite a few jobs in industry to be had - though about 75% of them are confined to So Cal or the North East.

[helpful]

A friend who works in one of the Life Sciences says you basically have to have made a 'discovery' and publish it in a top tier journal for you to get a job teaching on tenure track. Bizarre, isn't it! Your research accomplishments would trump anyone else's excellent teaching ability!

[greyscale]

Many Science Postdocs have no intention of getting faculty jobs though - so this number is not that bad.  I would say half of the postdocs in science fields intend to get a job in industry.  Fortunately at least for Chem and Biochem PhDs there are quite a few jobs in industry to be had - though about 75% of them are confined to So Cal or the North East.

Yeah, and a lot of biotech companies now want postdoc experience, not just a PhD. So even the people who started grad school intending to go into industry (quite a lot of people...) stay on the "academic" track for a few years after grad school. Even journal editor jobs ask for postdoc experience.

[vprof]

Thanks for this vprof. I wonder if the glut of post docs in the sciences is a result of the overworked (or at least expected to be) TT faculty?  Most post docs I know serve as hired help to do things that the faculty advisor has no time to do, including mentoring students and running the day to day lab duties.  So like the trend that has seen the post doc itself become a necessity for anyone pursuing a tt position, the post doc is evolving from a time when a young scientists gets a chance to strike out on their own, to a glorified lab manager position.  If I am right, it's no wonder there are more post docs than jobs, as faculty actively recruit them to run their lab, without consideration if they are a good scientist.  I wonder if there are statistics that show how many Ph.D.s get post docs in the life sciences?

flyguy,

Yes, most life science PhDs end up in postdoc fellowships as explained in the report "Between 1983 and 2003 the number of doctorates earned annually in the life sciences, including agricultural, biological, and medical sciences, almost doubled, rising from 4,777 to 8,163, according to the National Science Foundation's Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. The majority of these graduates immediately entered the postdoctoral arena, catapulting the number of postdocs in these fields at US universities from roughly 14,000 to more than 33,000".

You are also right on how postdoc fellowships have evolved over the years "PhDs were just being hired for benefit of mentors and their careers, treated as hired hands, and true mentoring wasn't taking place." "Others, however, deny that the problem exists. Most faculty, who depend on the graduate student and postdoctoral workforce, disagree that the system is churning out too many PhDs"

Biograd and csh589 are also right in suggesting that industry is an alternative for science postdocs. "Of those life science PhDs finding employment in 2003, the majority (55.5%) found jobs in academia. The rest joined industry (34%) or government (10.5%)".

[drwho]

What I find most interesting about this article is the first picture of the guy holding up a board reading 3 postdocs, 6 papers, will work for food. I realize this pic is not to be taken literally, but it does make me wonder about people's expectations. Obviously researchers in field X will typically have more publications than those in field Y for various reasons, but certainly in my field someone who's finished 3 postdocs and has only a handful of publications to show for it will quickly find that, unless those few papers are all in Nature or Science, his/her chances of finding a TT job are not significantly different from zero. There's a reason many scientists live by the mantra "Publish or perish".

So my question is this: how many of these +/- 80% of life science PhDs who are unable to find a job within 4-6 years after graduation have decent publication records? And how many think that simply having a PhD and a couple of postdocs under their belt is enough to earn them a TT job?

[onlyanne]

More than one postdoc is not generally a good thing.  Life science PhDs have a definite half-life.  (Postdocs begin to smell after three years...apologies to Ben Franklin.)

[mythbuster]

I'd say the official expiration date on post-docs is now 5 years. Since NIH put the requirement in their new "Pathways to Independence" grant that you have to have less than 5 years of postdoc experience to apply. If like me, you had to switch labs a year in, you are really behind the eight ball. I wonder how many of the people in that survey have become perma postdocs as well? If you make that 20% and get the job, then you get to fight to be among the 20% or less to receive NIH funding! Why do I love this job again?

[fish_actuary]

I've got a dumb question that hopefully someone can answer for me...

What exactly is included in the life sciences? It is it basically anything that would get a NIH grant? Does it exclude fields like ecology?

Thanks for the clarification.

A bit closer to the original topic... I've been in grad school for about 8 years (ecology/geology/oceanography type department) and to my knowledge just about grad student I've known during this time has gone on to get a job in some branch of our field. The jobs that these former students have been getting are a roughly equal mix of government, private and academic jobs. From speaking to the faculty in our department, this seems to be in line with what they hope their students will do i.e. the students not working in academia aren't considered failures. So I would argue that at least in my particular branch of science we are training a sufficient number of scientists or perhaps even a few less than are needed.

[tamiam]

What does a fish actuary do? Do you sell life insurance to cod?

[fish_actuary]

What does a fish actuary do? Do you sell life insurance to cod?

That would be the sales and marketing division.

I'm trying to figure out how well <virtual> fish populations will do (e.g. how many survive, how big do they get, where in a system do they live) under various water quality scenarios. I'm still trying to figure out how I can develop a life insurance plan for fish that would make me money. The average fish in my simulations lives less than a day if I only include the early life stages (eggs, larvae and juveniles).