Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 292 posts

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#261

Post by s0rce »

projectramo wrote: post #175

Are there junior scientists who don't know how dim the prospects are for an academic position are? I've been hearing this for two decades. Seems like the sort of thing that any mildly educated person would be aware of, let alone smart people in the field.

As others have mentioned this obviously isn't a secret but the environment at top schools is very cult-like especially in certain labs and pursuing non-academic tracks is looked down upon. The problem arises when you are objectively more accomplished scientifically than your peers and you think you might have a chance and realize that it will take 2 postdocs, 10-15 years and more politics than science to get a tenure track job these days.

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#262

Post by munin »

ptero wrote: post #252
munin wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very light TA load. It's far more normal to have a 20-30 hour a week commitment to your TA responsibilities (multiple lectures, grading a few hundred assignments every few weeks, etc) so it's a lot harder to fit research around that.

Are you serious? Can you share the school and department? This is an honest question -- I always thought 4-5 lecture or classroom hours was normal. That's what I had and that's what my friends had. Most of us never even used graders assigned as grading duties were light and it would often be more trouble to explain how you wanted it graded anyhow. I have never heard of a 20 hour TA load. Again, just wondering.

Every CS department I have ever heard of has a 20 hour TA load as standard.

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#263

Post by jjoonathan »

tertius wrote: post #158
fhood wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happen to be extremely well acquainted with one tenured professor of biological oceanography, and one tenure track professor of physical oceanography, and I can't say I agree with your observation. My experience has been that tenure or not, the amount of work that these individuals have on their plate is essentially endless. Grants are extremely difficult to come by these days, although its getting better, and it i…

> Grants are extremely difficult to come by these days Only because of competition. It's still vastly better in the U.S. than any other country. Competition is good.

Turn the competition knob to 0, everybody slacks. Turn it to 11, everybody cheats.

It's at 10. We're hearing more and more about large cheating scandals. I wonder, what could possibly be wrong with the system?

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#264

Post by tertius »

jjoonathan wrote: post #263
tertius wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Grants are extremely difficult to come by these days Only because of competition. It's still vastly better in the U.S. than any other country. Competition is good.

Turn the competition knob to 0, everybody slacks. Turn it to 11, everybody cheats. It's at 10. We're hearing more and more about large cheating scandals. I wonder, what could possibly be wrong with the system?

And beyond cheating we have a lot of bad science. * Reproducibility project.

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#265

Post by harry8 »

aqsalose wrote: post #41
harry8 wrote: post #27

Data so absent that they have to draw an analogy to a different data set without any supporting evidence that such is valid. This is Nature not the daily Mail. What is the statistic? How many PhD students have jobs in Academia 5 Years after being awarded? Surely they have /something/ that might be indicative they can publish that's better than footballers? Surely..?

Article cites one hard number: >Global figures are hard to come by, but only three or four in every hundred PhD students in the United Kingdom will land a permanent staff position at a university. It’s only a little better in the United States.

But I claim that number is really pi (or tau/2 if you must). Will you take theirs one rather than mine as an argument from authority? This is Nature, not the damn daily mail. Digital extraction required![1]

  [1] Vernacular expression "Pull your finger out!" Meaning to stop being lazy.[2]
  [2] Jokes you have to explain, suck.[2]
  [3] People who put footnotes on their jokes are terrible human beings.[4]
  [4] There is no [4][5]
  [5] citation needed

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#266

Post by [deleted] »

daemonk wrote: post #209
hyperbovine wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... you work 80 hours per week and make less than ... I've read so many comments like yours, on HN and elsewhere, and invariably the argument hinges on some variation of the above sentiment. I've come to believe I just have fundamentally different values than the vast majority of people who work in industry. To answer your (friends') question, because the work is more interesting and I make plenty of money as it st…

Because not all work in academia is interesting. I don't know about your field but academic research is more about doing what your funding bodies want you to do or following the latest trend to get funding. Publishing can be a political game where institution and contacts matter more than merit. Advancement in your career can be the same. I don't want to make a blanket statement for everyone because I am sure there a…

[deleted]

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#267

Post by dkural »

chriskanan wrote: post #6

The longer students stay in a PhD program, the less likely they want to be professors. Typically many first year students say this, but the numbers quickly drop off in later years. When I was a PhD student, I gave a few talks and blogged about this issue. I would present all these statistics in my talks about what they needed to do to be competitive, and people just absolutely hated me for it. One person said she wan…

Having spent 7 years getting a PhD (and a year prior working at a top lab), and then at industry; one of the most amusing facts to me is the belief in academia that professors/postdocs have much longer hours and "work harder" than their "9-5" colleagues in industry.

If you speak with recovering professors and post-docs who've joined industry, you'll quickly realize that one of their big surprises is the faster pace of work, and how much of it there is. Publishing of course is not sufficient, it actually has to work, at scale, reproducibly.

I like the academic environment, because at its best, it allows you explore something very deeply. Efficiency and creativity are different goals. There is value to a meandering path. Even if industry may have a fast pace solving problems, academia at its best, makes you ask a better / different question.

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#268

Post by maruhan2 »

I feel there could exist "academic industries." There should surely be a way to do similar research for industries. With proper infrastructure I feel like companies can own and sell research materials, allowing them to hire academic researchers to do academic research related to the companies field. In fact, with even better infrastructure, an individual could own and sell research materials

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#269

Post by Halladie7 »

Analog24 wrote: post #251
Halladie7 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Because I'd have gone to private industry anyway. Starting research and engineering salaries are roughly equivalent. Their respective progressions are about the same too. You'd only make more money if you founded a company and it was successful. You don't make fuck you money as employee #5000.

At some of the larger tech companies the salaries for scientists/researchers is usually higher than for engineers specifically because of the extra educational requirements. Where I work there are actually on two separate pay scales to account for this. I can't say this is true everywhere but there are definitely cases where you could have made more had you stayed in industry (emphasis on "could", it's not guaranteed…

There's definitely variation from company to company, but the gap isn't huge. Let's say the private research role got me $30k more than engineering. It would take at least 16 years to make up for the 5-6 I spend for a phd. Lots of variables though. I made the right choice for myself.

Re: Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects

#270

Post by hyperpallium »

DrNuke wrote: post #53

In 2017 the research path in computer-heavy subjects is not academy-bound anymore. There may be early problems in getting credit within the learned circles, but a couple of good papers and one good presentation at a good conference under your own ltd umbrella solve this for good.

Do you mean just publish on your own account, not under the auspices of an institution (aka "academy")?

Is "ltd umbrella" your own "pty ltd" company - instead of an institution? Or you mean, just within your own specialised field?

Post reply on HN