next »

[wiseprof06]

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!

Your friend isn't exactly correct.

Teaching-focused / SLAC / etc. jobs in science (Chemistry, biology, etc.) are mainly going to PhD's from good labs with some post-doc experience and a handful of solid publications who are also good at communicating and teaching undergrads. No extraordinary "discovery" is required-- just papers in well-known journals. These jobs are going to well-balanced candidates who fit the departments. You imply that people with great lab skills and no teaching abilities are commonly getting these jobs, and it's simply not true. By the way- it's also possible to be a good researcher and good teacher at the same time.

[flyguy]

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?

Welcome fish_actuary.  I always have thought of the "life sciences" as those involved, directly or indirectly, with biology.  So yes, I think ecology is one of them (although I'm not sure paleontology would work).  But  I think most people use that to mean those subject with either medical or pharmaceutical applications.  I found this on the web:

"Life Sciences” includes companies in the fields of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, biomedical technologies, life systems technologies, nutraceuticals, food processing, environmental, biomedical devices, and organizations which are involved in the various stages of research, development, technology transfer and commercialization."

By the way, NIH does give grants to ecologists, although you usually have to have a medical slant (e.g., vector ecology, microbial ecology, etc.).

[scientiffikk]

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.)

You are incorrect.  Two to three postdoc positions are normal now.

[scientiffikk]

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?

I wonder about this, too. 

I would also like to know what percentage of the successful 18% make tenure.  The grant situation is terrible right now.

[oopsadaisy]

Just to pick up on something the OP and quisqueia mentioned about humanities postdocs - I think the job rate for these individuals is *much* higher than the sciences.  That is because there are only about 40 places for postdocs in the US (say, about 150 postdoc positions per year) for all of the humanities (religious studies, history, english, languages, etc.).  If you get one of these, you are in the elite.  Except that if you get one, you probably are already in the elite as a graduate of an Ivy or Ivy-wanna be (check out the alumni of Columbia's Society of Fellows in the Humanities...suspiciously, there are many Columbia grads amongst Ivy grads and a select foreign contigent).  If, as a result, you are not "golden" on the job market, your first foot usually does make it in the door. 

Very different from the 33,000 or whatever science postdocs.  Then again, possibilities outside academia are fewer for the humanities too.

It's always amazing to me how strikingly things vary from discipline to discipline (6 articles in 4 years from a history person and people would be kissing hu's feet!  OK, a little hyperbole never hurt anyone...)

[flyguy]

Very different from the 33,000 or whatever science postdocs.  Then again, possibilities outside academia are fewer for the humanities too.

These numbers are just odd.  Saying there are 33,000 science post docs is like saying there are x number of non-science post docs.  Science is a HUGE area.  In Biology there are dozens of subdisciplines.  I would like to see how the numbers of post docs in ecology or cell biology or biochem compare with the number in the humanities.  Hell, there are only 3,000 ecologists in the largest ecology society in the US (and many of those are from Canada, Mexico, and overseas).  I am guessing there may far fewer than 150 ecology post docs per year.

[flyguy]

OK.  I looked up some numbers.  These are for Ecology based on a recent study of > 1,000 members  (http://www.esa.org/teaching_learning/pdfDocs/profilesReport2006.pdf)

1.  of the 1,653 respondents, 29% had a post doc before they finished their Ph.D., and another 49% had one within 1 year

2.  of the 2,044 respondents, 52% started on their "career track" in < 1 year of fininshing their highest degree, and a full 75% were on the "career track" within 3 years.

3.  of the 2,497 respondents, 49.9% are working at Ph.D. granting colleges, with another 14% at other colleges (4 year, MS colleges, CC).

My interpretation of all of this is that you need to secure a post doc rather quickly out of school, do a relatively short post doc (based on how quickly more folks got a job), and most people went on to a university of some sort.  Now this does not include those who did not go on, but I think it does shed some light on the time frames involved in one discipline.

[vprof]

Just to pick up on something the OP and quisqueia mentioned about humanities postdocs - I think the job rate for these individuals is *much* higher than the sciences.  That is because there are only about 40 places for postdocs in the US (say, about 150 postdoc positions per year) for all of the humanities (religious studies, history, english, languages, etc.).  If you get one of these, you are in the elite. 

I always thought the faculty job market was more competitive in the humanities compared to the sciences. May be that is still true. There are fewer postdoc opportunities as you pointed out but perhaps a lot of PhDs are applying for TT positions after holding adjunct/visiting positions for sometime.

Oopsadaisy and flyguy, I think there are generally fewer ecology postdocs relative to other life science disciplines. Very nice ecology statistics flyguy!!.

Drwho, I think alot of those folks may not have stellar publications 4-6 years after the PhD, but still want faculty jobs.

The National Postdoctoral Association based in DC is now more realist with regards to advising those willing to be life science postdocs. They are told the odds and that most of them will probably not be Professors so they better have a plan B lest they may be dissapointed later.

[nobycane]

Ok - now I am a little concerned. I am about to embark into my doctorate in the Earth & Environmental Science Education field.

I wonder what my chances are now........and I am getting ready to begin adjuncting after the first of the year.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

[grace]

Everyone needs a plan B.