Live data from Hacker News

As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

science.org

41–50 of 332 posts

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#41

PhD student looking forward to graduate and move on. I think one can make a decent living with a German salary, which is still 50% lower than an industry position, the reason why I want to leave is the insane competitiveness and inherent up-or-out structure of academia. If I could have a permanent position with the same salary I currently get I would seriously consider staying.

The lack of almost any permanent positions aside from full professorships in the German research landscape is truly ridiculous. What does that get you? A whole bunch of inexperienced PhD students with one professor at the top who cannot possibly find the time to adequately supervise them all / steer the research in useful directions.

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#42
Make it make sense. Offer Postdocs an actual career path not based on broken tenure and disposable adjunct professor roles, with hundreds if not thousands of applicants. Why would someone, with any field of study, be a "scum of the earth" post doc for 1/5th the salary and double the hours required as a junior python developer role? Moreso, post doc'ing for the wrong professor can ruin your career, why risk that either?

If the pay isn't good, the culture and work should be. In academia, that's almost never true. I couldn't support my family, nor ironically pay my families student loan payments as a post-doc, the decision was an easy one to make... But if I were really doing it for the love, the love isn't there.

You might think "oh here's an industry person who doesn't like academia", wrong. I loved research, writing papers, teaching people stuff, forming collaborations, etc. Just can't make it survivable financially or psychologically.

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the trivialization of this. The solution is not obvious. Paying more/longer requires more money. Where does that money come from? At least in my areas of science (chemistry), most of this money comes from grants, which comes from the NIH, DOE, or NSF depending on the project. Ultimately it comes from taxpayers, and portioned out by Congress. So the solution is either to get Congress to really care about this (…

I hate the helplessness of this. You have agency. You also have responsibility. You have a chemistry phd. You don't have to build your career on other people's crushed financial futures. Either find a job where you can pay people well or find a job where you don't need to manage other people's labor to stay employed. I have A LOT of dubious pet projects I could convince NSF to fund and would love to work on if I had…

You know, I agree with 90 percent of what you're saying, but on this...

> I'm also not exploiting the shit out of 20-35 year olds.

... I've got to say, you probably work for someone who is. It sounds like you're a decent human being and that's great--we need more of those--but the entire point of corporate capitalism (although this behavior exists in ostensibly noncapitalist organizations, too) is exploitation. Do you think CEOs care about whether they destroy the careers of people under them?

There's no ethical consumption under capitalism, and there's no ethical production either, but ultimately, we have to survive.

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#44
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you did a full PhD in what sense did you 'scrap' it? You just didn't do the defence?

It sounds like he went ABD. In the US, PhDs can take 6-8+ years. There are some shitty advisors who delay their students' graduations to get additional low-wage labor. Also, the academic job market is terrible and has been for 30+ years, so it takes a full year just to do the search.

Expanding the acronym for non-academia, ABD is "all but dissertation". After the first 2-3 years of a PhD program, the coursework is finished, you're into mostly independent research, and so you've completed "all but dissertation". This is a nebulous time that could be as short as 1-2 years, and could be as long as 5-10 years. The shorter durations tend to be in the sciences, and the longer durations in the humanities.

Because the duration is so dependent on the program, and the only end is when the advisor agrees that sufficient work has been done to merit a PhD, it can stretch on without much hope in sight.

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#45
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shortage of qualified people does not imply shortage of PhDs.

A PhD is the most common way to gain the experience and context needed to work professionally on compilers. If there aren't many PhDs, then the supply of people with the experience needed in practice is going to be low, even if there are also people without PhDs who can do it.

I think we were better off trying to raise the percentage of PhDs who are qualified, rather than just increasing the number of PhDs.

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#46
post #3

I spent 4 + 1 (extra year) going for the PhD. Getting funding for anything was nothing short of nightmare and the workload was (obviously) very high. Eventually I decided to scrap those 5 years for a triple salary as a junior developer and had a successful career since. Is casual coding more interesting than research/teaching - no, but staying in academia requires way more altruism than I could find in me. I also sti…

Doing a PhD and getting a job as a software developer afterwards seems to be a pretty common route nowadays

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#47

The quote from a prof upset that they only received 28 applicants in about 6 months is pretty rich to read, as someone who is in currently a PhD student. They should be delighted so many people want a job with indefinite length, uncertain prospects, and very little pay. I just recently got a post doc offer from someone, which I will almost certainly turn down because I know the reality: academia sucks, science is gre…

I think what really changed is that people who have a PhD nowadays certainly also have great coding skills and the latter is so much more attractive job wise

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ones in control of money and the ones in charge of running their lab and hiring postdocs are not the same people. If you can't hire a postdoc for shitty salary, then that shitty salary can be repurposed for something else. The former won't ever budge for the latter until the whole system collapses. And even then, I dread that they will just leave it in ruins.

> The ones in control of money and the ones in charge of running their lab and hiring postdocs are not the same people. Does this disconnect happen in other spending decisions? For example does the maintenance department ask the administrators for money for new lightbulbs that cost $1 each and the administrators ask them to buy them for 25c instead, even if they aren't available for that price? How can you even decid…

In the case of postdocs specifically, the PI's money comes from grants, which specify how much the postdocs can be paid. That's the limitation -- funding agencies, and the NIH pay guidelines in particular.

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the trivialization of this. The solution is not obvious. Paying more/longer requires more money. Where does that money come from? At least in my areas of science (chemistry), most of this money comes from grants, which comes from the NIH, DOE, or NSF depending on the project. Ultimately it comes from taxpayers, and portioned out by Congress. So the solution is either to get Congress to really care about this (…

I hate the helplessness of this. You have agency. You also have responsibility. You have a chemistry phd. You don't have to build your career on other people's crushed financial futures. Either find a job where you can pay people well or find a job where you don't need to manage other people's labor to stay employed. I have A LOT of dubious pet projects I could convince NSF to fund and would love to work on if I had…

> Leave academia and find a company who will fund your work.

This is the weakness in your argument. Not all of science is interesting to the private sector.

I worked for a large company once that in the past had large labs for researching charge transfer and other fundamental physics. When I toured those labs, they were all empty, with broken and unused machines.

I know this site focuses on computers and tech. But there is a large world of scientific disciplines out there that just aren’t useful to business. But useful to society as a whole.

Lastly, postdocs typically make ~50-55kk in my neck of the woods. Underpaid, maybe depending on the field. But far from “broke”. Thats around the starting salary of school teachers and many other professions.

Re: As professors struggle to recruit postdocs, calls for change in academia

#50

Now would be a good time to donate all of the money spent on the administration instead on to paying postdocs well?

Agree. I would also prefer if universities focused their funds into subjects that leads to long term benefits, whether that is economic growth, better social cohesion (less polarization), etc.

In other words:

- More funding to STEM, at least the profitable parts.

- More funding to the parts of humanities, socal science and law schools, who's work help bring the nation together, find common ground and reduce conflict.

- Partly cut funding to institutions that do not provide such benefits, and to institutions with too much administrative overhead.

- Completely cut funding to institutions that actively promote social conflicts.

To make it easier to reach these goals, without interpreting each goal in a politcal light, change the funding process as follows:

- Add an x% corporate tax, earmarked for science & education.

- Set up a board, where representatives chosen by those companies that pay the above tax (proportionally to the tax paid) make up 60%, former highly trusted academics 20% and representatives chosen by the sitting government 20%.

- Have this board govern the expenditure in the ways that maximize the benefits defined in the charter above, while having some checks and balances to prevent corruption.

- Encourage grants to be given in larger chunks than today. Direct grants to students should be the exception, and not something a student would apply for. Rather such grants should be awarded in a similar way to how the military grants medals for exceptional performance. When a research leader identifies a particularly deserving candidate, he/she can recommend that this candidate is granted a special individual scholarship, due to exceptional performance and ability. Leaders who repeatedly send spurious recommendations should be discouraged from doing so.

- Instead, institutions or high profile reasearch leaders should be given grants based on historical performance, and be trusted to be able to find the right students themselves. (Within some framework to prevent corruption.)

- Once granted, funds should only be revoked in the case of breech of confidence. Renewal should happen early enough to allow continuity.

The goal of the above proposals, would be:

- Prevent public money from being wasted on wasteful or destructive activities

- Reduce time spent on research grant applications, so that students and employees can focus on the actual science.

- Encourage academic freedom and promote integrity.

- Make sure institutions educate the kinds of students that are in demand in the job market, and the scientific results needed to promote economic growth as well as a more robust state.

Post reply on HN