Slashdot Mirror
Glut of Postdoc Researchers Stirs Quiet Crisis In Science
HughPickens.com writes: Carolyn Johnson reports in the Boston Globe that in recent years, the position of postdoctoral researcher has become less a stepping stone and more of a holding tank. Postdocs are caught up in an all-but-invisible crisis, mired in an underclass as federal funding for research has leveled off, leaving the supply of well-trained scientists outstripping demand. "It's sunk in that it's by no means guaranteed — for anyone, really — that an academic position is possible," says Gary McDowell, a 29-year old biologist doing his second postdoc. "There's this huge labor force here to do the bench work, the grunt work of science. But then there's nowhere for them to go; this massive pool of postdocs that accumulates and keeps growing." The problem is that any researcher running a lab today is training far more people than there will ever be labs to run. Often these supremely well-educated trainees are simply cheap laborers, not learning skills for the careers where they are more likely to find jobs. This wasn't such an issue decades ago, but universities have expanded the number of PhD students they train from about 30,000 biomedical graduate students in 1979 to 56,800 in 2009, flooding the system with trainees and drawing out the training period.
Possible solutions span a wide gamut, from halving the number of postdocs over time, to creating a new tier of staff scientists that would be better paid. One thing people seem to agree on is that simply adding more money to the pot will not by itself solve the oversupply. Facing these stark statistics, postdocs are taking matters into their own hands, recently organizing a Future of Research conference in Boston that they hoped would give voice to their frustrations and hopes and help shape change. They ask, "How can we, as the next generation, run the system?"
Possible solutions span a wide gamut, from halving the number of postdocs over time, to creating a new tier of staff scientists that would be better paid. One thing people seem to agree on is that simply adding more money to the pot will not by itself solve the oversupply. Facing these stark statistics, postdocs are taking matters into their own hands, recently organizing a Future of Research conference in Boston that they hoped would give voice to their frustrations and hopes and help shape change. They ask, "How can we, as the next generation, run the system?"
and unemployed brainiacs?
Form an evil syndicate and take over the world, of course.
If the climate science deniers are right they're in the wrong field. If they'd just sell their souls to toe the warmista line they'd be rolling in grant money. /sarcasm
We need more STEM, no, no we need less.
Historically university posts were open to people with a BA (e.g. John Wesley and John Newman at Oxford in the 18th and 19th century) That it now takes a PhD and post doctoral work to get the same post means that we are training too many. Therefore the only solution is to row back on the PhDs being generated; given that governments are looking for money saving measures, this would seem an obvious starting point.
Give me $2 million (pennies, compared to some labs), 2 years, 2 math PhDs, 2 EEs, and 2 comp. sci PhDs, and I'll give you a CPU that runs encrypted programs on encrypted data. Mostly, I just need grunts. There's plenty of grunt work.
Bet you I do it cheaper than DARPA. Alright, time to stop slacking off and back to the computer mines... it won't build itself.
How perverse it is that we should have "too many" well-educated people! Capitalism is a strange thing.
I am a recent Ph.D. graduate in the biological sciences. A few things missing that are important to point out, I think:
Postdocs have the worst salary to education ratio of just about any position anywhere. You are paid, in some cases, 0-1% more than a first year graduate student, except you have 7 years experience and a terminal degree. Where I live, postdocs are paid a salary so low that they qualify for section 8 housing and a number of low-income welfare benefits. Raising a child is impossible, but by the time your postdoc is finished you may be 35 or older.
Unfortunately, refusing to do a postdoc is not a tenable position for many because becoming a faculty member absolutely requires at least one postdoc run, often two. Now, industry is recognizing the glut of postdocs available and are requiring years of postdoc experience for even entry-level industry positions.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
If I hear one more news report about all the job opportunities open to STEM workers, I might scream. Either shorten it to TEM or mention that there are many jobs under the STEM categories, but S-cience is experiencing total glut.
Ph.D. graduates getting stuck in PostDoc positions isn't something new. It might be new for Biology, but it has been that way in Physics and Maths ~20 years ago when I was still doing post-grad in Physics.
If they had to pay their own way, the number of PhD students would drop tremendously and all the postdocs would leave to get jobs in the real world. Problem solved!
Welcome to the economy, academia. Cry all you want about funding leveling off. You shouldn't have expected it to grow indefinitely and shouldn't have whipped up class after class of student who will, in the real world, be unemployable to any degree that will pay off their loans before they're dead.
There are 2 ways to fix this:
1 - Stop creating students/graduates that no one wants to hire (postdoc or otherwise).
2 - Stop attracting students you have no intention of turning into graduates people want to hire.
It's not a university's direct job to ensure someone is employable, but it is their job to ensure that they are educated in something useful. Being unemployable typically means your skills aren't seen as useful enough to be paid to do shit (or unique enough to be the one selected out of many).
TL;DR:
Common sense: Too many cookies? Stop making cookies.
Academia: Too many postdoc researchers? Make more, faster.
"academics complain there's too many academics"
There is an alternative: study something the real world needs and can apply. Then you can take your phd to industry. This way market forces will balance the equation.
Don't look to external factors or regulation to solve the "problem" (I don't see one). Look to yourselves and your own choices then determine if the chance at continuing in academia is worth the risk. Otherwise study something we need. Like genetic modifications do work for Monsanto. Materials science and work for Corning glass. Or terrorist psychology and go work for the CIA.
Plenty of places will employ a phd, as long as the phd has the sense and wherewithal to get the hell out of academia and ensure their years of esoteric study are actually economically viable.
That still leaves 30k postdocs to count the hairs on bullfrog testicles.
Maybe, the thing we need is sTEM, or even just TEM.
How I got taught about how governments determine shortages is, they look at other markets or economies, ones which they'd like to imitate, and see what sectors that market is stronger at. Then compare to their market, and see where the shortages and over supplies are. Strong economies that do well, are going to tend to have high productivity with decent exports of innovative products.
So, the reason we keep hearing for more STEM is not because there actually is a shortage, but because they think the economy would be better with more of it. It's a matter of, "train" them up and they'll find jobs, rather than jobs and careers are there waiting to be filled. In some sectors, sure there are shortages, but in others, not so much. I'm in Australia, and I keep hearing about engineer shortages, but it's very difficult to find jobs at the moment. Companies aren't training, and just want someone with years of experience immediately. Statistics I keep on hearing that the majority of engineering graduates don't work in engineering here, they end up doing sales or other things where by virtue of completing an engineering degree, likelihood of having a dope is much lower than say an arts degree.
Science degrees for the most part aren't very useful (in Australia) unless you're aiming to get into academia, or one of the incredibly few research jobs. Because of the loans program for students (no upfront costs for study, minimal interest rate for repayment [below inflation iirc], and minimum income before you have to pay it off), a lot of people study, because they might as well. The issue with it is, a lot of people study things that really won't get them a career. Science is one of those areas of study which has many students, but not many careers afterward.
Best example I can give is from my university statistics. Science has the worst employment rate for graduates and postgraduates. https://www.uts.edu.au/...
Their universities are coming up to speed nicely...
The only solution is to issue more H1B visas to increase highly skilled and educated workers.
Earning beneath minimum wage with a Ph.D. and without benefits is considerably worse than a postdoc's lot.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
So if there were 30,000 biomedical graduate students in 1979, that represents 7.60% of the population (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+united+states+in+1979 )
..and if there were 56,800 biomedical graduate students in 2009, that represents 5.42% of the population (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+united+states+in+2009 )
So... c'mon man, where are the jobs?
Universities have a perverse incentive when it comes to producing doctoral students.
University departments are bureaucratic systems. A bureaucratic system's primary objective is to grow. It may take 20 undergraduate students to 'make' a class. It only takes 10 masters students and 5 doctoral students. The more classes that make: the more professors are needed: the bigger the department.
This means the fastest way to grow your department is to increase the number of doc students. Since almost every Ph.D. is an industry-useless research degree, this, then, leads to the glut of researchers we see today.
The solution has already been hit upon by business schools. The AACSB accredits only 120 universities to produce doctoral students. Of those each field (accounting, finance, marketing, management, information systems) has about 80 universities that are accredited for that sub-field. Each field graduates about 3 students a year. Without an AACSB accredited professor-pool it is hard for a business school to get AACSB accreditation. But why does the business school care?
The masters program produces a degree that is valuable outside of academia and a premium is charged for it. While accreditation is no guarantee that your business school is good, if it does not having it you can be almost certain that it is bad. The MBA is NOT a research degree and in no way prepares you to be a professor.
What is needed is for the highest caliber departments (in each glut field) in the US to join together in an association. The association limits how many doctoral programs are accredited. The association maintains the highest standards for undergraduate, masters, and doctoral programs. The association limits how many doctoral students are admitted relative to the number of research active faculty in a department.
Combine this then with a masters program that is entirely focused on practical work in the field. Do not give doc students a masters and do not focus on research skills that are not valuable in industry in masters programs. Presently: Nursing, Business, and Engineering are all viable directions to go for someone interested in research and teaching. Perhaps you notice a pattern?
And the pay? 150k is not an unheard of starting pay for an assistant professor of accounting.
I wonder if part of this PhD glut is a delayed effect of the recession, which decreased employment opportunities over the last 6 years or so. Given the choice between taking your bachelor's to work at Starbucks or living on a similar salary as a grad student but with the prospect of an advanced degree a few years down the road, it was a rational thing to do. Of course, the "best" available option is not necessarily a "good" option.
YOU GET MY POINT ... ......
You mean study something that enhances profits for the very, very wealthy.
Academic research works on an awful lot of problems that *the world* needs to solve, yet it makes no money for the propertied class, so there are no investment or funds available to support it.
Many fighting this fight aren't fighting for their pocketbooks; they're fighting to do science in the interest of human goods, rather than in the interest of capitalist kings.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Maybe you could hire one to do your math?
Same thing happened in the 50's and 60's to Britain. Loads of smart people came here because there were so many jobs here and not at home.
Now the jobs are in China and the available positions are over there, not here.
So, the postdocs are being exploited for science?
This is just a textbook example of why you shouldn't trust what statistics people feed you, right?
Having been a postdoc and also having been lucky enough to land a faculty position I don't see that this is a new problem at all. There have always been far more postdocs than academic positions available for them to fill. While it was always my hope that I would get an academic job I was fully prepared for the reality that I might end up in industry and had even started putting out feelers in that direction.
If postdocs are entering the position thinking that they will all end up in an academic job then either they are not doing their homework or someone is feeding them unrealistic expectations. The maths is simple: faculty positions are for life while postdoc positions are for ~3 years at a time. If every postdoc were to land a permanent academic job faculty would have no more than one postdoc over their thirty year career i.e. faculty would outnumber postdocs by a factor of 10 to 1.
You can increase this to allow growth in the number of faculty positions but ultimately if you want to have a reasonable number of postdocs a large fraction will have to move into industry. There is no doubt that the uncertainty of being a postdoc is hard (it was for me) but I knew full well going into it that there was a chance I would not end up as a faculty member. Having a cadre of highly qualified researchers entering industry is a very good thing since they bring the latest discoveries and techniques with them...plus they will likely end up earning far more than they would as a faculty member so it's not all bad!
I am a newly tenured faculty in physics at a major DOE national lab. Let me chirp in with a couple of facts:
a) Biology is absolutely unique. Postdocs there are truly paid peanuts and the ratio of faculty/postdocs is incredible. And faculty don't even have fun since all they do is write NIH grants, most of which don't get through. What they do is really useful -- this is how we will get medicine for the 21st century, but the system is absolutely untenable. On the other hand, a lot of this experiments are really not "cutting science", it is a dumb repeating work where you just need to get a couple of techniques right. Basically, it is one notch above automation, but doesn't require thinking at night.
b) My postdocs are paid decent salary at around $60k per year. This is over twice what some poor biology guys get and less than what engineering postdoc get. But they are truly terrible, I naively expected my productivity to go up by a factor of 4 with three postdocs and instead it got down by 20%. The bottom line is that over half of newly minted PhDs are not capable of doing independent research. Sure, they might be clever compared to general population, can solve a differential equation if pushed, but not the kind of guys you need to unlock mysteries of universe. The fact is that majority of postdocs don't deserve to become faculty (this is why I am posting as AC :))
c) Grad schools, at least in physics, don't teach the neccessary skills. 80% of what we do is software engineering, basically a lot relies of simulations and nicely written code. It took me 10 years to become a decent (not great) coder, but it could have taken me 3 if properly taught during grad school. I had a postdoc that ran some of the state-of-the art codes on machines with 120,000 cores running for two weeks, you would have thought that a guy getting access to this kind of resources would know his CS: no, his version control was dated directories with copypasted code left and right in a non time monotonic fashion and his coding style was fortran in C syntax (the MPI/OMP parts were done by others). Go figure it. [Having said that, I tried to work with CS guys and they know their coding, but have no physics intuition, so that didn't work either. You need both, that is why it is hard to find the right people].
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg... ...
"Actually, during the period since 1970, the expansion of American science has not stopped altogether. Federal funding of scientific research, in inflation-corrected dollars, doubled during that period, and by no coincidence at all, the number of academic researchers has also doubled. Such a controlled rate of growth (controlled only by the available funding, to be sure) is not, however, consistent with the lifestyle that academic researchers have evolved. The average American professor in a research university turns out about 15 Ph.D students in the course of a career. In a stable, steady-state world of science, only one of those 15 can go on to become another professor in a research university. In a steady-state world, it is mathematically obvious that the professor's only reproductive role is to produce one professor for the next generation. But the American Ph.D is basically training to become a research professor. It didn't take long for American students to catch on to what was happening. The number of the best American students who decided to go to graduate school started to decline around 1970, and it has been declining ever since.
To most of us who are professors, finding gems to polish is not our principal problem. Recently, Leon Lederman, one of the leaders of American science published a pamphlet called Science -- The End of the Frontier. The title is a play on Science -- The Endless Frontier, the title of the 1940's report by Vannevar Bush that led to the creation of the National Science Foundation and helped launch the Golden Age described above. Lederman's point is that American science is being stifled by the failure of the government to put enough money into it. I confess to being the anonymous Caltech professor quoted in one of Lederman's sidebars to the effect that my main responsibility is no longer to do science, but rather it is to feed my graduate students' children. Lederman's appeal was not well received in Congress, where it was pointed out that financial support for science is not an entitlement program, nor in the press, where the Washington Post had fun speculating about hungry children haunting the halls of Caltech. Nevertheless, the problem Lederman wrote about is very real and very painful to those of us who find that our time, attention and energy are now consumed by raising funds rather than teaching and doing research. However, although Lederman would certainly disagree with me, I firmly believe that this problem cannot be solved by more government money. If federal support for basic research were to be doubled (as many are calling for), the result would merely be to tack on a few more years of exponential expansion before we'd find ourselves in exactly the same situation again. Lederman has performed a valuable service in promoting public debate of an issue that has worried me for a long time (the remark he quoted is one I made in 1979), but the issue itself is really just a symptom of the larger fact that the era of exponential expansion has come to an end. The End of the Frontier could just as well have been called The Big Crunch."
See also from 10 years ago!
http://www.villagevoice.com/20...
And somewhat more recently:
http://philip.greenspun.com/ca...
A collection of general links I put together on schooling:
http://p2pfoundation.net/backu...
http://p2pfoundation.net/backu...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
With the unemployment rate so high, people need more and more education to find work. Not because the jobs have changed and they require more education (though a few do), it's simply to distinguish one job candidate from another. A person 'merely' qualified for the job stands no chance against the competition. The education, no matter how much money and how many years of a person's productive years were sunk into it, is needed the day of the job interview and at no other time.
The flip side is that for a given level of education, people are settling for more menial work than they used to.
As we all know, there's no problem in the labor market that can't be solved with more education.
As President Obama says at the official White House web site, "Earning a post-secondary degree or credential is no longer just a pathway to opportunity for a talented few; rather, it is a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy." Because, as he notes, "With the average earnings of college graduates at a level that is twice as high as that of workers with only a high school diploma, higher education is now the clearest pathway into the middle class."
To help sustain this middle class, the President has proposed policies that will:
- Help Middle Class Families Afford College
- by Keeping Costs Down
- Strengthen Community Colleges
- Improve Transparency and Accountability
Therefore, earning a PhDs must not be enough. What we need is a new credential. Something beyond PhD. A... "Super PhD" that will help high achievers stand out to those employers seeking only the best. Of course, that means longer class schedules, more lab training, in short... more education.
Don't worry, our financial institutions are here to help. Banks will be happy to lend you more with government backed student loans. It's the least they can do for a beleaguered middle class too uneducated to succeed in this high tech economy.
America is that Shiny City upon a Hill, a place where gleaming gold coins lay scattered about ripe for the picking. You only need more education to find them. A new life awaits you in that shining city on the hill. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure! So come on America, become a go-getter and land that Super PhD! The Sciences are just filled with Gold Coins of Opportunity in this Shinny City on a Hill for those with the right education.
Historically university posts were open to people with a BA (e.g. John Wesley and John Newman at Oxford in the 18th and 19th century)
That it now takes a PhD and post doctoral work to get the same post means that we are training too many.
The point of a PhD and postdoc work is not purely to train people for academic positions. Industry also needs these people. Many of my peers when I was at Fermilab went off to work for Lucent or into finance. Indeed analyzing financial data using the latest techniques from particle physics turned out to be quite lucrative for some of them!
Not a glut - a shortage of jobs and a situation where the leading roles in science and technology are being handed to China and India on a plate.
I'm 45 and on my fourth postdoc. I don't aspire to get tenure and my own lab; that train passed years and years ago. Instead I treat postdocs as a job in its own right. And as such, it's not necessarily that bad.
True, the salary is much lower than I would get in private industry. On the other hand, it's still more than twice what a typical worker would get in construction or manufacturing. It's certainly more than a living wage where I live. The job is not secure at all - but then, what job is any more?
And while I don't get to formulate my own research goals, I do have a fair amount of freedom within the bounds of the overall project where I work. And while the days are long, I am an academic and can still set my own schedule; I don't need to ask for permission to leave for a dental appointment, or take a long lunch to enjoy a beautiful autumn day at the nearby park.
So yes, you're at the bottom of the academic ladder, and you're less and less likely to ever climb higher. But when you compare to other people - and not just those better off than yourself - it's not a bad place to be.
There is nothing wrong in using higher taxes to fund the most important human activity - scientific research - now that productivity is at an all-time peak. Unlike some other professions, most scientists love what they are doing. So why not use the higher productivity that robotics and computerization allow, to pay more people to do scientific research?
If the US population is 330,000,000 and there are 56,000 biomedical postdocs, I think the % of the population is 0.017 %. Math is not the poster' s strength. If he's a scientist, even a NYC cab driver job might be a problem keeping track of mileage or making change.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
The honest truth is that the vast majority of biomed PhDs are not qualified to assess the merits of grant proposals or research reports. This is not really due to any inherent personal limitations, but because they have been rendered incompetent by poor statistics training (NHST) and no math background. It is easy to find evidence consistent with a theory so vague that it only predicts up/down effects or zero/some correlation, but this is all they are trained to do. Look in any paper these days for a discussion of alternative theories explaining the "significant" results, it is nearly always missing or amounts to a few sentences. They never take the "next step":
"Particular attention should be drawn to the fact that statistics are not interpreted here in the usual manner. The usual application of statistics in psychology consists of testing a "null hypothesis" that the investigator hopes is false. For example, he tests the hypothesis that the experimental group is the same as the control group even though he has done his best to make them perform differently. Then a "significant" difference is obtained which shows that the data do not agree with the hypothesis tested. The experimenter is then pleased because he has shown that a hypothesis he didn't believe, isn't true. Having found a "significant difference," the more important next step should not be neglected. Namely, formulate a hypothesis that the scientist does believe and show that the data do not differ significantly from it. This is an indication that the newer hypothesis may be regarded as true. A definite scientific advance has been achieved."
MATHEMATICAL SOLUTIONS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
HAROLD GULLIKSEN. American Scientist, Vol. 47, No. 2 (JUNE 1959), pp. 178-201.
Ronald Fisher predicted this:
"We are quite in danger of sending highly-trained and highly intelligent young men out into the world with tables of erroneous numbers under their arms, and with a dense fog in the place where their brains ought to be. In this century, of course, they will be working on guided missiles and advising the medical profession on the control of disease, and there is no limit to the extent to which they could impede every sort of national effort."
Fisher, R N (1958). "The Nature of Probability". Centennial Review 2: 261–274.
I am a scientist and I have been a postdoc (and government grant manager and industrial scientist). This is not new, but is more new to biology than it is to other fields.
This problem is real. Our best researchers can't find a job and are "sitting on the sidelines." The investment in those folks by the government (i.e. your taxes) is going down the drain the longer they're unable to do meaningful work.
My feeling is that the underlying problem is the insulation of academics from the commercial world. Most science professors don't know what is involved in commercial work, don't know the relevant skills for commercial work, and don't have a network for landing jobs for students in industry. There are far too many professors who don't know how to train their students for anything other than academic work, and some who are adamantly against training their students for jobs outside of academia.
The result is that industry jobs that many PhDs expect to get go instead to people who left school with a BS or MS and received more relevant on-the-job training in industry. The truth is that there are very few jobs where the experience of a modern PhD is more meaningful than 6 years of industrial bench work. The government and academia still hire preferentially by degree, but those folks can't hire enough people to put a dent in the supply.
To fix this problem we need radical changes to the way we pursue science. Some possibilities for the future:
1) getting a PhD is "for fun." This is the current reality. If we all accept and understand this, that PhDs have no competitive advantage over MS students in the marketplace, there is no problem. If we do nothing, this will continue and will eventually make the PhD system obsolete.
2) Control of research direction shifts toward industry (i.e. professors become subcontractors on grants to people like Merk and IBM). I doubt many academics would like this, and there would absolutely be problems, but it would generate students with broader skillsets and networks.
3) Control of research shifts back toward government labs. This used to be the way things were. Government labs sat between industry and academia and facilitated movement of people, ideas and funding. Entire funding agencies that supported these labs are gone. Grant managers and review committees used to mostly be active scientists at government labs, that's no longer the case. This would be expensive to get back to and would really be unfair to the foreign scientists making up the majority of our young scientific workforce.
4) Set everyone on the GSA scale. Right now you can get a recent grad in his 3nd year of work funded at $60k/year on a grant to a commercial grantee, but it's almost impossible to get more than $25k for that same work done by a "graduate researcher" in academia. (Even if professors want to do right by their employees, they often can't.) So, don't allow any more $20k/year graduate students on grants. Everyone gets paid based on a combination of local cost of living and experience (years & degrees). That's the GSA scale (ok, it kind-of is). Removing the discount for students would remove free grad school for scientists, but would immediately fix the problem that the best bench scientists can't find jobs.
Whatever happens, the solution is not going to come from inside science. Scientific leaders range from completely disgusted with the human trafficking which is the modern research economy to openly hostile to the idea that this problem needs to be solved. Most people just don't know what to think. There will be no consensus amongst us in science on what, if anything, needs to be done.
More STEM helps the economy. But the economy doesn't reward you for going into STEM. It's pretty simple, so if you are confused, it is because you make invalid assumptions about the economy.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
TFA is about bio-medical post-docs. They're quite different to physicists; lacking most of the mathematics and algorithmic problem-solving skills... (I'm a former bio-medical post-doc working in the finance industry; but luckily my ugrad background was mechanical engineering and physics. No idea how I'd get a job if it had been biology instead...)
The Pauper Post Doc Army is collective punishment for lack of significant clinical advancement in Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, Alzheimer's and Schizophrenia.
The financial state of biomedical science is intimately linked to positive human health outcomes -- not the number of papers published.
The society will not endlessly support an endless horizon of scientific bio-wimsey. As someone commented, ask what happened to Physics.
There are ways to keep going in science and you may have to work at the BENCH rather than inhabit an office and lord it over underlings.
Having delivered all this doom and gloom, I actually think the future for science is bright.
But smaller. Less is more.
I can barely fuckinh feed myself,. you take your hippy bullshit elsewhere
You can add stroke, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury to that list.
So what about the STEM shortage I keep hearing about? How is it that we can keep pushing for more careers in STEM but at the same time have a surplus? I've read a number of articles that have touched on this topic but would love to hear some of the opposing arguments by individuals with real knowledge on the topic.
But the problem is that universities are full of baby boomers that de facto do all the hiring. And guess who they want working with them? Other baby boomers.
I've worked and studied for years at a state university. It's basically become a retirement community with as much life and original thinking.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck
There's no way in hell they're going to give way to the young. They'll use their collective power along with age discrimination laws to block any effort to bring in new blood. I've seen it. The law shields them from having to compete against the young and clever.
So get used to unemployment, PhDs, at least until the most greedy, self-centered generation finally kicks-off.
The current research University system was designed for a period of rapid expansion. Post-secondary education started as a luxury available to the elite and turned into a standard part of the middle class experience. To expand the supply of teachers each Professor had to train multiple other Professors, even then this was insufficient so you could still get an tenure track position without a PhD.
But for the last few decades the percentage of University students has stabilized and the number of Professors with it. Thus the system designed to pump out Professors has created an oversupply, one of the places where those unused PhDs build up is in postdocs.
The solution is either to train fewer PhDs or to create more pure research jobs to use the PhDs we produce.
I stole this Sig
It's simple math really. As someone above pointed out, a university professor will graduate about 15 PhD's. Since the number of professor positions isn't quickly increasing, most of those PhD's aren't going to become university professors. So they either languish as post-docs or have to find a different job (either in or out of science).
This is good for the universities who can get the cream of the crop as professors. (And considering that getting a PhD in science is no trivial matter in the first place, this is really the cream of the cream of the crop). The bad part is that we've lead a huge number of people down a very challenging path without telling them that their odds of success would have been similar if they chased their dream of becoming a rock star, instead. (OK, maybe not quite, but you get the point).
On top of that, if they are one of the lucky/hardest working/brightest ones who manage to get a university position, they then face a 5-10 trial period before they get tenure, during which 80 hour weeks are the norm as they teach classes, train grad students, get grants, and publish or perish. After tenure, it doesn't get much easier if they want to keep doing research and feed their graduate students.
The easiest way to lower the number of science grad students is probably simply to be honest with them, and let them know this going in, instead of telling kids and young adults how important it is that people go into science. But, if we did that... 1 - the current system would fall apart because grad students (and post-docs) form an extremely valuable class of cheap and highly skilled labor for science research at universities. 2 - The quality of research in general would go down dramatically, as some of the best and brightest possible scientists (i.e., the few who make it, now) would choose other fields.
There needs to be a financial weight that relates to the employment prospects of a university's graduates.
If a faculty produces too many graduates that are unemployed years after graduating, the university should suffer a financial loss. Perhaps less student funding for a particular course or less government grants.This will incentivise them to make modifications to a program or cut intake.
Of course, this is a complicated area, but currently it makes no difference to a University if they produce masses of unemployed/unemployable people.
It's sad that science don't get more respect. Fanatics of various stripes in Congress, in the Middle East, and around the world are more interested in superstitious beliefs than science. And really, when it comes down to it, aren't almost ALL scientists tedious with their caveats and their statistics?
One would think that before embarking upon a ten year educational voyage, they might have investigated the prospects for a reward. Any kind of reward- money, prestige, a mention on Big Bang Theory, girls... But no, they forged ahead blind to the future and their own survival.
PostDocs should be happy that they don't live in times/places of revolution when the educated are the first to be cremated alive. Modern educational standards don't require knowledge of Pol Pot or Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin. For centuries, intellectuals have been the bane of those who want to conserve traditional values and beliefs. Really? Global warming, descended from monkeys, quarks? These people need to get real.
And so let's give them a position somewhere where they can do no harm and quietly fade away. It's really only a tiny minority of them that actually makes waves and disrupts our dearly held beliefs.
...omphaloskepsis often...
I lump stroke in with cardiovascular. Restoring motor function to the paralyzed would impact about the same percentage of those afflicted by schizophrenia so ...touche....although it can be argued that one is worse for society than the other.
In no uncertain terms I think that some great advances are in the pipeline in all of these areas but that the current crop of hyperspecialized underemployed scientists are casualties of a lost decade of gross over promises to both policymakers and the public.
I mean a few years ago it kinda sounded like squirting in a bunch of stem cells would have Chris Reeve up in no time. Who would have thought it would be much much harder?
Lots of STEM talent, not enough STEM jobs.
God spoke to me
using all these scientists. with the condition that the company be non-profit.
Even if you feel that funding for scientific research shouldn't grow to at least meet inflation (and NIH funding hasn't grown to match inflation in many years now), there is still a problem in the funding of scientific research in the US. The big problem here comes down to how funding mechanisms pay for people who actually DO research. Grants are, more often than not, structured around the very meager pay that we have for graduate students. Faculty and other Principal Investigators (PIs) often have no choice but to hire grad students as they are the only people they can afford to hire - or are allowed to hire - under the terms of the grant.
However, PIs are not allowed to keep their grad students forever, either. Those grad students have to be let go (preferably with PhD in hand) at some point; it doesn't look good for anyone to keep a grad student around too long.
The idea of establishing a new rank of "senior scientist" - with common understanding of what it entails and a livable wage to go with it - is a great one. The problem is figuring out a way to pay those senior scientists.
That said, i don't have any pity for someone in their late 20s on their second postdoc. I know plenty of people in their mid-30s who are only on their first.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The SCI field has been off track since they started adhering insane amounts of protein to culture dishes in the mid/late-1980s and found that cells (neurons/fibroblasts) don't like to grow on some of them. That lead to the idea the main difference between CNS and PNS is the presence of "inhibitory proteins". Alternatively, these are just proteins that stick especially well to culture dishes. The problem is they continued without ever comparing how much actually adheres... They would be preventing the cells from growing the same way putting concrete over dirt prevents plants from growing. We don't know after 30 years of research since no one reports on the amount adhered.
The more relevant difference seems to be the presence of basement membrane (eg laminin) tracts in the PNS for neurons to grow along. For some reason studying how to take advantage of the latter has gotten almost no funding.
We need to have more trades / tech schools and apprenticeships.
The higher level of college are to academic. And even just to days 4 year college plans are loaded with fluff and filler with sides of skill gaps.
There is to much put on academic / theory. Also at some schools you can end up learning stuff that is 2-4 years old at the start of class and by the time you get to end of 4 years they may just be starting to work on teaching stuff that was new 2-4 years ago.
The Pauper Post Doc Army is collective punishment for lack of significant clinical advancement in Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, Alzheimer's and Schizophrenia.
There is major ongoing scientific progress in understanding all these diseases at the level of basic science. And there have been significant recent improvements in clinical outcomes for both cancer and heart disease. Maybe there's a problem with public perception - but any collective punishment is totally unwarranted.
The society will not endlessly support an endless horizon of scientific bio-wimsey.
Even just the diseases you mentioned cause immense suffering. Scientific progress towards cures for these diseases is not even remotely whimsical. Do you a prefer economy focused on producing designer handbags where trained scientists languish in part-time menial jobs in the service industry instead of making progress toward cures for cancer?
Because if they're post docs in some liberal arts pursuit... then they're not really anything society can use. We never needed many such people and if we trained lots of them then they're going to have to get other jobs... anyway.
If they're in STEM fields then they are useful but they're going to have to justify themselves to industry... not government.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You started well but then got lost in the trees. Follow the money. In your first example, the university has an incentive to increase the number of graduate students -- the professor/department would assemble a class and get revenue from (?) Are these grad students shelling tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their personal bank accounts? Or is some third party making that financial transfer? So let us assume that the doc students are transferring money from some third party. That third party is apparently turning a blind eye to the fact that there is little or no economic return to the resulting naked PhD. In other words, we have a third party that makes irrational inflationary spending decisions uncoupled with the actual utility of the resulting PhD student. This all boils down as usual to 'writing checks with other people's money and pretending to be a saint while doing it'. Old story, news at 10.
>The bad part is that we've lead a huge number of people down a very challenging path without telling them that their odds of success
I'll be charitable and assume you're joking. These are *Ph.Ds*, they know damned well what the situation is and they chose to take a chance.
Not every Olympic entrance wins a medal either.
This is a situation faced by millions. You want to do something for a living but there aren't any jobs. They should really accept that fact and move on like everyone else. It's particularly hard to have sympathy in that this isn't something that just happened yesterday - it's been a long time since getting an academic position was likely. Longer than it takes to get a PhD.
"there have been significant recent improvements in clinical outcomes for both cancer and heart disease."
To what are you referring?
Either shorten it to TEM or mention that there are many jobs under the STEM categories, but S-cience is experiencing total glut.
There are many jobs in TEM if you hold an H1B (and are willing to work for less than it would cost for someone with . But substantially more newe H1Bs are being issued than new TEM jobs created. This means that the number of citizens in such jobs is dropping.
Last I heard about 1/3 of the citizens qualified for TEM jobs are actually so employed, and recent grads mostly need not apply.
(And then the newsies wring their hands and wonder why students - especially women - are largely uninterested in completing a Computer Science or other TEM degree.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I posted:
There are many jobs in TEM if you hold an H1B (and are willing to work for less than it would cost for someone with .
I meant to post:
There are many jobs in TEM if you hold an H1B (and are willing to work for less than it would cost for someone with the same qualifications who is native-born.)
(The keybord and trackpad on this recent LeNovo z710 are driving me nuts.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A society where we have an abundance of science? Sounds good to me, let's give all these folks labs!
It will never happen of course, people want to use money for frivolous things, like keeping score between rich people.
Cancer --> paradigm targeted immunotherapy --> CLEOPATRA
http://www.gene.com/media/pres...
Cardiovascular --> paradigm mAb targeted cholesterol knockdown --> Regeneron
http://www.fiercebiotech.com/s...
Advanced genomic typing of chronic conditions plus harnessing of an arsenal of immunotherapeutic approaches coupled with targeted inhibitors could IMHO pave the way to lasting benefit for a good number of patients. This is 21st century impact medicine...it took a while to develop
You asked, I have my delusional opinions too. The grant money is indeed hard to come by.
I suggest they get to work inventing a small device that will know the appropriate time to say "Would you like fries with that?", so that their own vocal cords don't get tired by repeating it over and over at the only job they'll ever likely have.
Rather than press releases, can you link to the more detailed reports that have convinced you?
Eg this one?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23602601
For reference see Rowe, Mike: "Dirty Jobs". Some of the people doing the dirtiest jobs around are not just wealthy, but multi-millionaires! And all they ever told me was go to college, you'll get a good job! After $1,200,000,000,000 in student loan debt and 96 million people unemployed, there may be a need for a new paradigm shift.
In the west, young academics today are typically far better than their older peers at their age, or at any age. Certainly, there aren't as many folks revolutionizing multiple fields since each field requires more background, but across the middle tier departments you typically find the strongest researchers and lecturers amongst the younger professors and postdocs.
We need to make several changes :
(1) Remove all NSF grant money for postdoctoral researchers. Postdocs exist so that young faculty headed for middle tier schools can spend a little time at upper tier schools. A middle tier school like say Perdue should not have any postdocs. If an elite institution (MIT) or flagship state institution (Berkeley) wants postdocs for this purpose, then it already has the endowment to fund them itself.
(2) Add NSF funding for staff scientists analogous to French CNRS positions. They'd negotiate with the NSF about which university and lab they're posted at, but their position is basically permanent. As in France, these would basically replace postdoc positions in that the best young scientists would take them and the best of those would move on to university professorships.
(3) Ban exploitive part-time lecturer positions by removing NSF and DoE funding for universities that hire them. Of course, universities could hire full-time lecturer positions, i.e. teachers who teach a lot more than professors.
(4) Augment salaries for NSF funded PhD students who work on research topics with believable applications in industry. These kids are going to spend their lives seeing their peers in applied fields get more for less, start that early so that they can change early if they want. We're not talking really immediate applications here, obviously very abstract fields like group representation theory or rough paths have applications, but very popular subjects like hyperbolic aka geometric group theory or set theory has no realistic industrial applications at this time. There is nothing wrong with people working on subjects without applications, but maybe paying them $300+ less per month will help them realize that they're making their lives more difficult than necessary. In practice, this dividing line might appear different in different fields, maybe CS PhD in programming language theory would earn less for example.
Ah . . . .but all those professors of poetry can write up a nice little ditty as to the nature of life and all its tragedy. So we'll all feel better about dying an early and painful death and the thought of paying so many people to do little or nothing for humanity all their life will be the last thought going through our fevered minds.
You can't?
EVERYONE wishes they could choose a career that would go out of its way to manufacture a choice and cushy position for them on-demand.
Reality is, if you choose to go into a field with a glut of participants, jobs are going to be lower paying and few and far between and it becomes a race to the bottom.
Do like everyone else does when trying to break into a particular career. Get a job.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Is this a case for reducing the federal/stage/private loans to PhD candidates nationwide like was done to trade schools in the last few years? Will loans be made or not-made on credit-worthiness and future earning potential?
>This wasn't such an issue decades ago, but universities have expanded the number of PhD students they train from about 30,000 biomedical graduate students in 1979 to 56,800 in 2009, flooding the system with trainees and drawing out the training period.
First of all, training is for dogs. Are we talking about dogs ?
Secondly, population was 226,545,805 in 1980 and by 2010 is 308,745,538. Consequently, 308,745,531 / 226,545,805 * 30,000 = 40,885 and the effective increase is only 28%.
Thirdly, does not the world really need more biomedical specialists ? What about hiv, ebola, Cancer, ... ? Are there any cures ?
Money is easily spent on war, hardly on helping the world.
I'm an engineer and I work with a lot of people holding PhDs, as well as "normal" people.
I couldn't find *any* correlation between "holding a PhD" and "being smart", "being creative", or "being efficient".
Holding a PhD basically just tells me that they sat down on some problem for a long time, and wrote hundred pages that only 1 or 2 people read.
Holding a PhD might correlate to "being resilient" or "don't mind doing boring repetitive stuff", but it surely doesn't mean you're the "cream of the cream of the crop", especially when "the cream of the crop" already has big social deficiencies.
Lets look at the main finding from the CLEOPATRA study (At least as reported in that May 2013 paper). First, as rational people, we don't care that the two groups were literally different, we care about *how different* and what explanations there may be for a difference of that size/type. So lets try to get at the important info and ignore the meaningless statistics jargon like this:
The important info:
This sounds pretty good, around 40 more people survived to the end in the pertuzumab group. But...
The majority of the patients dropped from the study for both groups (Clinical trials are usually very noisy like this, it is not unexpected but it does mean we need to be on the lookout for lurking confounds). Actually, 40 more patients discontinued treatment in the placebo (+ trastuzumab/docetaxel) group. Not only that but 35 more of these patients discontinued ALL subsequent treatments for their cancer. Why is the relationship between placebo/pertuzumab and discontinuing all further treatments just as strong as that between the drug and overall survival? Are they the extra ones who died?
Anyway, the real problem as explained in this series of Nature articles (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472276a.html), is that the number of faculty positions has remained relatively constant in comparison to the vast increase in the number of PhDs awarded. As mentioned by another poster above, this system was created and nurtured by the people who got their faculty jobs in the 1970s and 1980s when they faced very little competition. To paint a slightly caricatural picture, when research budgets expanded, the people in charge used most of the money to expand their own labs rather than to create more tenured jobs.
Because of that, expectations in terms of published research and obtained funding have kept going up to a point where it is very difficult for young people to become independent. Senior established investigators have the better toys, they can take more risks, they have more money, they populate grant panels and can easily stifle competition and control a good part of the review process in top tier journals.
Back in the day the evil commercial industry saved me from the ivory tower I was heading for. Now if there's much less demand for university trained (not yet|post) docs what do you get?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Can the surplus outsource themselves to India?
Table-ized A.I.
As someone commented, ask what happened to Physics
Physics is still on the gravy train created by the Manhattan Project. Each of the large magnets for the SSC (which was never finished) cost more than the US government has spent on computer science research in total, ever.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
In the 1979 the total US population was about 225 million. Now in 2014 the population is 316 million. A factor of 1.9 increase. A mere 10-20% leftover can be easily understood that these days, for example, Ford does not need low-skilled menpower to asseble parts, but may use robots instead. As a result, people can contribute where the brainpower and knowledge is needed. This is more than enough to understand this "bizzare" "surplus".
and ironically enough we still have plenty of Chinese graduate students and post-doc researchers attending schools in the US. If the post-doc situation is so dire, ship 'em back.
We are the 198 proof..
It is surprising to see this discussion framed around the economical aspects of "supply" or "demand" of PhDs etc.
In my view, whether we should be educating people to the best of our/their possibility is a fundamental societal question which transcend the economic one. And the answer to that question, based on my conception of "progress" is a BIG YES, because it is important for the society as a whole to be better educated, for many reasons which include freedom, progress, sustainability etc.
The +real+ (and much harder question to answer) is the following: what shall we do we a society which becomes a) more and more educated and b) more and more automated.
As a tentative answer, I propose the following: work "productively" 10-15 hours a week maximum, and spend the rest of your life to research, educate, create etc. I short: spend your life to progress.
Having been a post doc, but now having a rewarding career in science, I do feel for today's postdocs. It should be noted, however, that this is not a new phenomenon nor is it worse now than before (Unless you go back to the 70s). Just search "The post doc trap", and see how many documents come up, and check the date. This has been an ongoing problem for some time now. That it still exists looks badly on the scientific community. While there is probably casual support for the post doc situation among the professors/researchers, unfortunately, I do not believe that there is really strong support. If there was, the situation would have been remedied by now. As has been mentioned, post docs are the workhorses in any lab - Cheap and ultra qualified researchers. Why would the PI let them go? Perhaps we need a system were lab heads are judged not only by #publications and #postdocs, but also by the success of the postdocs after 2, 3 or 4 years. Researchers unable to move postdocs to "real jobs", would be scored badly.
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2004_07_09/nodoi.10005588954275704093
My wife, a PhD particle physicist who got her doctorate in 1981, worked at least 3 post docs (Vanderbilt, Syracuse, UofFlorida) until she got a permanent position at FermiLab. That was some 10 years of post-doc positions. This has been a serious problem for a long time. In the late 1940's my father, also a physicist, did a short post-doc and went straight into an assistant professorship within a couple of years. For the past 30+ years, this is the exception.
long live the blackpignouf scale of aptitude!
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
In other words, its called supply and demand. There is more supply than demand. So, less people choose the academic path, situation corrects itself. Viola!
The extent of the "problem" has perhaps changed a bit, but this has always been the case. This view is a consequence of misunderstanding the realities of the profession they are in - and any profession for that matter. And this is it - You are part of a pyramid. At the top, there will be few opportunites. At the bottom there will be many. Only through hard work, and by continuously producing outstanding results, with a lot of patience and a little luck can you even hope to progress. It was always the case, and will always be.
" - The quality of research in general would go down dramatically, as some of the best and brightest possible scientists (i.e., the few who make it, now) would choose other fields." A lot of the best and brightest have been ditching STEM research for decades and becoming quantitative analysts for Wall Street, the City of London etc etc. So this would be nothing new :)
Du kan glomma dina ensama stunder, du kan lita paa teknikens under - Wilmer X
To paint a slightly caricatural picture, when research budgets expanded, the people in charge used most of the money to expand their own labs rather than to create more tenured jobs.
That's because you can't create permanent jobs from temporary funding. No individual researcher has the power to create a tenure-track position, because those positions are created by the university. In the case of state universities, tenure track positions come directly from the state budget. Over the last 40 years, states have uniformly decided that providing a college education is not the state's job. State allocations have not kept up with inflation or student body growth. Since 1980, universities have had to meet a 95% increase in student body growth in parallel with a 40% decline in state funding. They've done this by raising tuition and hiring non-tenure-track lecturers.
Research is amplifies that trend. Research grants are nominally to the university, but they will generally move with the principal investigator. Research grants actually take away from faculty's ability to teach classes, and the shortfall is made up by hiring temporary, non-tenure-track lecturers. So, now you have the state commitment to long-term faculty being bought out with short-term contracts.
If you want to increase full-time, tenure-track faculty growth, you need to get state taxpayers to commit to the socialistic principle of state-funded education, raise taxes, and hire faculty. Research contracts won't teach your children.
It's called the IPCC.
STEMvelopers! STEMvelopers! STEMvelopers!
Oh, you want to be paid commensurate with your training? fuggeddiboutit...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I have many friends who are post docs who are now out of their field doing other stuff for a simple reason. Their jobs stopped being about doing research and became about getting money to do research. They spent 95% of their time writing an endless stream of grant proposals for an ever vanishing slice of the pie. Moreover, many of them were frustrated by the fact that it seemed that some institutions vacuumed up huge amounts of grant money leaving other labs high and dry. The system is clearly broken and basic science is suffering for it.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
3 or 4 guys with advanced degrees in STEM are *sharing* an apartment, and a waitress/actress/bartender/salesperson has an apartment to herself.
That should tell you all you need to know about the financial prospects for being a post-doc. (and they're in physics, so they have a roof over their head.. were Sheldon and rest in biology, they'd be living in the dumpster behind the building)
For tenured professors in unversities. A fair amount of professors do retire after arranging some say about their successor and emertus status.
The Pauper Post Doc Army is collective punishment for lack of significant clinical advancement in Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, Alzheimer's and Schizophrenia.
Have you seen the rate of survival of cancer now vs 30 years ago ? Don't say there aren't advances.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
>The bad part is that we've lead a huge number of people down a very challenging path without telling them that their odds of success
I'll be charitable and assume you're joking. These are *Ph.Ds*, they know damned well what the situation is and they chose to take a chance.
Not every Olympic entrance wins a medal either.
*After* their PhD, of course they know their job prospects. But as bright-eyed undergrads choosing advanced science as a career, students tend not to worry that far down the road. In theory, as students are told, you should "do what you love" and not just choose a career based solely on how much money you can make from it. It's only near the end of their PhD program that they start to realize that their assumptions of a cushy tenure-track job might not be all they imagined. Could this have been avoided before investing four years of their life toward something that may be a dead end? Who could have told them?
Either shorten it to TEM or mention that there are many jobs under the STEM categories, but S-cience is experiencing total glut.
You can drop the math, they have a glut as well. Oh and many fields of engineering are pretty full. Technology is not as bad though it skews heavily towards the most talented end of the work force. So really it's "Hey we need some more of the brightest in technology and a few specialized forms of engineering but if you're not in the top 10% and pick the right field then don't bother".
I was going to suggest that masters degrees should be more akin to an MD or JD--an alternative to a PhD where you've both mastered the topic and created new knowledge--but it occurred to me: There are a glut of JDs, but from what I hear it in no way prepares you for the actual practice of law.
MDs don't have this problem because to graduate you *must* do a significant amount of residency training you for practice I'm interested to hear from someone who's background in law to see if JDs have this.
Because the logical fix, then, is to require every professional, non-research degree to require a residency. Which in turn puts the onus on the school system to give their students at lest two years of commercial experience.
In terms of the knowledge necessary to teach a subject, that hasn't risen that much. It's important to realise that higher degrees don't teach the breadth of a subject necessary for teaching - they focus down on a remarkably small area. In as far as being an academic is being a teacher, there hasn't been that much change in the knowledge needed to do the job.
The complexity comes from the fact that academics are expected to contribute their subject's advance, and that does need the depth of knowledge. However in practice the skills learnt by a PhD are more than enough to do that; the reality is that post docs exist to absorb the excess supply of PhDs.
This isn't exactly a new idea.
From the journal of the American Physical Society, April 1971, The Manpower Crisis in Physics :
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED059660.pdf
Just an observation, the states are doing a very successful job of educating post graduates that no one will hire. If a university can educate a new crop of PhDs, say 15 in bio science by only hiring one or two of their own post graduates, the problem is not that there aren't enough positions. It will always be that there is more capacity to create these post-grads, than there is to absorb them. I wonder if the same problem exists with economics PhDs, or if the education is so effective that the students stop when they see the train coming in the tunnel, and switch to accounting or computer science. (Just being silly).
Why are the only 2 options in an economy always 'cure cancer' or 'designer handbags'? I have seen this 'designer handbags' theme in like 15 posts now. Why do you hate designer handbags? To be fair, designer handbags have some advantages over bio scientists. Their utility is clear, they are well-made, attractive and they work for their intended purpose. Most PhD research that is 'pure' has none of those attributes and few researchers are known as attractive. So stop hating on handbags. It demeans you and makes your position more ridiculous than it could be, as far as that is possible. No economy in human history has spent more on research than we in the US, do now. If your beef is that those decisions are being made by the wrong people, say so. Cancer does cause immense suffering, and there is immense spending to combat it. No amount of spending will be able to absorb the limitless production of researchers, so I would prefer an economy where there was less over-production of unemployable people. It represents misdirected resources and costs society. Useless degrees have an opportunity cost that is unacceptably high. However, there is an element of freedom in the US that says that no one should be determining your future. So, if one has a useless degree, and one can't find a job. Way to make choices! Go Freedom! Now enjoy them.
There has always been a glut of postdocs. In the early '80s when I was thinking about getting a doctorate, the dismal job market in academia was a major reason I didn't. A friend of mine got a doctorate in botany and wound up at a backwater university in a city he never wanted to live in. The truth is that if you're a superstar, you'll find a job. Anybody who's just very good or excellent (and you really should be to consider getting a doctorate in the first place) is left scrambling.
You might find the intro of this book of interest (just noticed it today) as it talks about the conflict between scarcity and post-scarcity ideas, including market failures and market-based solutions: http://books.google.com/books?...
"Sustainable Growth in a Post-Scarcity World: Consumption, Demand, and the Poverty Penalty -- by Philip Sadler"
IMHO, universities have an implicit moral obligation (including "in loco parentis") to be candid and as accurate as possible with their students about things like career prospects; that they fail to do so as evidenced by this issue is problematical whatever the reasons (including "selection bias" that you only see relatively successful academics working in universities and the advice they give may have worked for them decades ago but may not be very useful either now or for other personality types).
If you look at other countries like in Western Europe, there is not as much of a conflict between being reasonable "successful" in a field and having a family and hobbies and such. Example: http://www.salon.com/2010/08/2... ... But even before the recession, American workers were already clocking in the most hours in the West. Compared to our German cousins across the pond, we work 1,804 hours versus their 1,436 hours â" the equivalent of nine extra 40-hour workweeks per year. The Protestant work ethic may have begun in Germany, but it has since evolved to become the American way of life. ... In comparison to the U.S., the Germans live in a socialist idyll. They have six weeks of federally mandated vacation, free university tuition, nursing care, and childcare. ... How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place? The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans. ..."
"Germany's workers have higher productivity, shorter hours and greater quality of life. How did we get it so wrong?
Various studies show that overwork does not make people more productive in the long term. Lots of things suffer -- including creativity. Overwork in the USA is a cultural pathology. BTW, it is also problematical to try to motivate the best creative work via rewards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
As for technological innovation, there is a lot of discussion related to that by people like Langdon Winner and E.F. Schumacher (including related to "appropriate technology"). Just look at how US federal dollars went as subsidies via land grand colleges to big agriculture research vs. small farm research. Why were research funds for decades going into ever bigger mechanized harvesting operations and related plant varieties (the tasteless tomato) instead of multi-purpose flexible agricultural robotics useful for small farms and heirloom seeds? Why is funding "Seed Savers" heirloom seed production (seeds with a variety of natural resistance and good nutrition) or remineralizing US soils via ground up rock dust not one of the USA's top defense priorities vs. defending long supply lines of imported oil used to create monocultures propped up in dead soil doused in petro-chemical-derived synthetic fertilizers and pesticides?
http://www.seedsavers.org/
http://remineralize.org/
Markets may be good at producing certain types of abundance, but in the absence of political oversight, markets are pro
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Yeah - when pharmaceutical companies are spending twice as much on Marketing as they do on R&D. . . I'll believe that they're frustrated by lack of progress on the "big" problems of medical science.
LOL - the biggest innovation to come out of the pharmaceutical industry in the past 20 years is to patent the analogs of existing chemicals whose patents are about to expire. Double the profit! Oh yeah. That, and boner pills.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.