next »

[fedscholar]

This thought occurred to me in the R1 vs. R2 discussion, but it seems general enough for its own thread.

Given the horrible job market for PhD graduates in many fields, would it be possible for an R1 hire to earn tenure with primarily master's and undergraduate student researchers and postdocs? I know this is field and institution specific, so if you have strong opinion on this, please specify the general field and type of institution.

My thought at the moment is that I would like to have lab ratios of about 2, 4, 1, 1 for undergraduates, master's, PhD, and postdocs, respectively. I would love to have PhD students, but I just worry about overproduction and failed expectations. Perhaps I am being too altruistic, but I generally like to set sideboards up front that match my values, and squeeze research into those constraints. I am just daydreaming, of course.  I am not sure if this model would hold water at an R1. Feel free to dowse these ideas with a cold,wet bucket of reality. Better yet, tell me what you would do.

[southerntransplant]

We have to have at least one PhD student either graduated or substantially in the pipeline. This was not a "condition" for tenure, but it's one of those boxes that need to be checked for a relatively smooth transition through the tenure process.

However, while I understand your concern regarding overproduction of Ph.D.s, I think you will have a hard time building up any sort of program with only one PhD student at a time. You're underestimating the degree of transition disconnect that will occur between master's students. You need students whose stay will be long enough to smooth over the bumps. In addition, to do truly creative work, you need PhD students since they will have the time to devote to coming up with innovative ideas. An MS student will have maybe two class-free semesters (tops) to devote to research before graduating.

Right now I have two of each, and I feel understaffed. I anticipate that the minimum number of Ph.D students I will have at an one time is two, and ideally it should be threee or four.

[mleok]

A 2:4:1:1 ratio of undergraduates:MS:PhD:postdocs seems like a recipe for tenure denial, just from the point of view of the drain undergraduates and MS students are on your research productivity. If you're concerned about overproducing PhD students, just pump all your grant funding into postdocs, but don't waste your time on undergraduate and MS students unless they're truly exceptional. In particular, you should think of undergraduate students as a teaching and service contribution, and MS students are only worth your time if they are interested in transitioning to the PhD program.

I'm an applied mathematician at a public R1, and my group currently consists of 3 postdocs, 1 PhD student, 1 MS student (who intends to transition to the PhD), and 1 visiting PhD student.

[mleok]

I should perhaps add that this is the start of my third year at my current institution, and the postdocs were intended to jump start the new group, and that there are a number of prospective PhD students in the pipeline, but I don't really think of them as my students until they finish up their coursework.

[scampster]

A 2:4:1:1 ratio of undergraduates:MS:PhD:postdocs seems like a recipe for tenure denial, just from the point of view of the drain undergraduates and MS students are on your research productivity. If you're concerned about overproducing PhD students, just pump all your grant funding into postdocs, but don't waste your time on undergraduate and MS students unless they're truly exceptional. In particular, you should think of undergraduate students as a teaching and service contribution, and MS students are only worth your time if they are interested in transitioning to the PhD program.

You all know I'm just a postdoc so take this with a grain of salt, but I also think that there are some nuances based on your research approach. I'm a field scientist (and I believe fed scholar is as well). Having undergrads and masters students work for me has always been a necessity because I essentially need skilled labor to do the field work. When your group is made up of mostly PhD students, making the entire group all go into the field for a week or two or more (and multiply that by everyone's projects) is a waste of your other PhD student's time (although some exposure to the other projects is good). Even if you can manage to keep one field tech on staff, I often need four people in the field at once.

I won't disagree that trying to do data analysis with them is sometimes painful though.

[fedscholar]

Good point about the PhD in the pipeline requirement. Regardless of the ratios, it seems reasonable for an R1 to expect evidence that a tt hire could mentor and graduate PhD students before granting tenure.

My main reason for pondering PhD control is that it seems like we are graduating far more than can find gainful employment in academia or all the obvious research arenas combined. Since it is almost exclusively a research degree, this seems a bit exploitative. Frankly, people capable of earning a PhD might have strong executive capacities that could conceivably be cultivated in a somewhat modified program, which weaves in skills complementary to research (management, leadership, entrepreneurialism,etc.). I know in my case, I never saw myself as a researcher until I did the PhD. But once bitten....

Ok, same question, but for an R2?

[southerntransplant]

My main reason for pondering PhD control is that it seems like we are graduating far more than can find gainful employment in academia or all the obvious research arenas combined. Since it is almost exclusively a research degree, this seems a bit exploitative. Frankly, people capable of earning a PhD might have strong executive capacities that could conceivably be cultivated in a somewhat modified program, which weaves in skills complementary to research (management, leadership, entrepreneurialism,etc.). I know in my case, I never saw myself as a researcher until I did the PhD. But once bitten....

PhD degrees in STEM are generally funded by research grants, and most funding agencies don't rightly care if the student has nascent skills in management, etc. I don't know how tenable an approach like this is without a focused program supported (financially) by the university, unless the student built it based on coursework choices.

Basing the need for PhD control solely on academia is misleading, though. A PhD might also be a required degree in a government lab for leading a program, or might confer credibility in industry, etc. Not all PhD students I run across are hell bent on an academic career - especially after seeing how hard their advisors work.

[mleok]

A 2:4:1:1 ratio of undergraduates:MS:PhD:postdocs seems like a recipe for tenure denial, just from the point of view of the drain undergraduates and MS students are on your research productivity. If you're concerned about overproducing PhD students, just pump all your grant funding into postdocs, but don't waste your time on undergraduate and MS students unless they're truly exceptional. In particular, you should think of undergraduate students as a teaching and service contribution, and MS students are only worth your time if they are interested in transitioning to the PhD program.

You all know I'm just a postdoc so take this with a grain of salt, but I also think that there are some nuances based on your research approach. I'm a field scientist (and I believe fed scholar is as well). Having undergrads and masters students work for me has always been a necessity because I essentially need skilled labor to do the field work. When your group is made up of mostly PhD students, making the entire group all go into the field for a week or two or more (and multiply that by everyone's projects) is a waste of your other PhD student's time (although some exposure to the other projects is good). Even if you can manage to keep one field tech on staff, I often need four people in the field at once.

I won't disagree that trying to do data analysis with them is sometimes painful though.

I could see if you're in a field which requires a large amount of data collection in the field or in the lab, where it doesn't take too long to train motivated undergraduates or master's students to the requisite level of expertise, then this seems like a viable option. In my field, the requisite mathematical sophistication to make a significant contribution to my research program is such that postdocs and (excellent) PhD students are necessary.

Back to fedscholar's concern about controlling PhD production. I would say that this is something that no one faculty member can control, and given your broader approach to your field, a PhD student might benefit from working with you, as opposed to a faculty member with a narrow academic view of the field, particularly if the student is interested in exploring non-academic career options.

Put another way, you're not in the UK, where a PhD student is admitted to work specifically with a given faculty member, so even if you limit your PhD student intake, it is unlikely to have an effect on the number of PhD students that your department admits.

[turing_complete]

PhD degrees in STEM are generally funded by research grants, and most funding agencies don't rightly care if the student has nascent skills in management, etc. I don't know how tenable an approach like this is without a focused program supported (financially) by the university, unless the student built it based on coursework choices.

Basing the need for PhD control solely on academia is misleading, though. A PhD might also be a required degree in a government lab for leading a program, or might confer credibility in industry, etc. Not all PhD students I run across are hell bent on an academic career - especially after seeing how hard their advisors work.

Indeed.  In our (R1 computer science) department, only about half of our PhDs head to academia.  The other half, mostly to industry, but also some gov't, etc.

It would definitely be hard to get tenure here, I think, if you didn't have a PhD student at least in the pipeline on his/her way to completion.  Personally, my first PhD student officially finished exactly one day before I handed in my tenure file.  :-)  I currently (tenured 6 months ago) have 4 PhD students, as well as a postdoc, three Master's students and an undergrad research student.  But that's abnormally high in my department.  (And I do not consider the Master's and undergrad students to be a drain on research productivity; all of my past Master's students, as well as this current undergrad student, have made strong contributions to my research agenda, including publications in top-tier venues.)

[anisogamy]

I don't believe my advisor had graduated any PhDs by the time he was tenured several years back, but perhaps the first had just finished.  He did have a number of us in the pipeline by that point (5-7), and intermittently also worked with undergraduates on stand-alone projects.

[polly_mer]

From watching my slightly older colleagues, your plan, Fedscholar, will work much better at an R2, especially if you are in a field where what you need is helpful hands as Scampster described, not basically independent scholars.  Otherwise, you will be hosed since your research productivity won't be high enough for the top R1's.

With a couple master's students, you can get out a couple papers a year in my fields.  However, to get tenure at the top R1's, people need to be doing 15-20 papers a year, which is very difficult without the machine (3-5 postdocs, 5-10 doctoral students, a couple master's students, and maybe two undergrads).

[totoro]

From my social science perspective at not elite universities (small social science department at R1 ranked 40th) most PhD students were a drain on productivity rather than a help. We had to show involvement with grad advising to get tenure but no specific requirements. But may have been different in the engineering departments. All the school really cared about was getting grants.

Here in Aus I got a grant and will be hiring a post-doc so that I get someone who is already trained in the methods etc. Most of our PhDs are going back to their home countries, getting jobs in government etc. and that is their preference. As a school we are trying to be more selective in the students we admit and reduce the numbers.

[fedscholar]

Well, this was a fun thought experiment.

I have heard enough to gather that the experiment would be quite foolhardy on the tenure track. Perhaps a tenured professor could play around with the rules, student levels a bit, and worst case, get passed over for Full Prof.

I do find it a bit depressing that the R1 "machines" depend upon so many PhDs, many of whom will not use their PhDs, and who may ultimately have been better served by doing something else.  In biological sciences, I think we have produced thousands of PhDs for hundreds of jobs. Even if 50% of the graduates prefer to work outside of academia, and they are successful, a large majority will not end up with research positions in academic, government, or industry. Supply and demand are an order of magnitude out of wack. Instead they will be up against smart master's graduates with on the job experience.

Here is an article on the general topic. Probably discussed before, but...

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472276a.html  

A US scientist in the article is trying a different staffing structure, but apparently is fighting the cheap labor expectations of PhDs and postdocs vs. more expensive professional scientists.

[mleok]

Fedscholar, I hope you're not broadcasting your flights of fancy about changing the state of academia while discussing your career plans with references, or during interviews. You're only really allowed one "idiosyncrasy," and for you, it would be your non-traditional non-academic background. Making such thoughts generally known during an interview will almost surely tank your job candidacy at a R1.

You undoubtedly have strong professional qualifications, but you need to develop your traditional academic qualifications as well before people will take you seriously when you propose dramatic changes. If you come across as a person who thinks he has all the answers from him time in a federal job, without having experienced the academic setting as well, you will be immediately dismissed and marginalized, which is a bad way to start a tenure-track appointment.

[fedscholar]

I agree. And this is the only place I share these thoughts.

In practical terms, it seems that any person on the tenure track must follow the recipe.

I am a big picture person, prone to ponder the meaning and trajectories of things. It is just my nature.
I am an innovator by temperament, not at adaptor, in Kirton's classification. Such people must question, and they must constantly evaluate the hierarchy, and the meaning behind the machinations, and ponder outcomes. Adaptors dominate in every established organization, from business to government and academia. They excel when the rules are straightforward and clearly defined. But not all rules structures are correct or best serve society. Innovators upset the apple cart.

Paradoxically, a major reason I am considering academia is because I believe it will provide the venue to think and innovate, not just toe the line. Government is sometimes a hard place to do that. It is fairly rigid, hierarchical, and task-focused. A great place to be a manager, but much harder to be a leader (at least in the mid levels), except at the times of great political change, which occur haphazardly.

I realize that academia has many similar traits, and even more cut throat attitudes about how to contribute or even what to think. However, I am confident that an earnest person who wants to do good work and also recruit, mentor, and support the careers of the students would be a valuable addition.

Although R1 universities have a relatively intense tradition of doctoral recruitment and training, it is becoming increasingly clear that that system probably serves the established faculty more than the students, and society. We have only had the system for about 100 years, and with the changing demographics of American society, we are having to look over all elements of higher education to see if they meet the purposes that warranted the tremendous investment in them in the first place. Nothing about the system is sacrosanct. Nor should it be. Just saying....

This said, these are post-tenure ideas, for sure.