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

More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 250 posts

Re: More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals

#171

Post by ricree »

godelski wrote: post #161
absolutelastone wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are good arguments about phd's not going into academia. But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. Not a worthwhile sacrifice if you want to work in the private sector in my field. Maybe it's more important for industry jobs in biology or something. Personally I think it's a warped system that takes advantage of cheap labor from developing countries. And it feeds itself.…

> But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. That's not really true or fair. You're talking about a person who's done likely 4 years of undergraduate and between 4 and 8 (median 5?) years of graduate studies and gained a Ph.D. This person is without a doubt "an expert" in their field. Does that person still need training? Sure. But who doesn't? You're also talking about someone…

>And you're expecting them to make pennies?

I don't think the person you are replying to was expecting this. Rather, I read their comment as agreeing with you that the benefits and compensation were low enough that few people would be interested in the position except as a stepping stone into a better faculty position.

Re: More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals

#172

Post by absolutelastone »

godelski wrote: post #161
absolutelastone wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are good arguments about phd's not going into academia. But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. Not a worthwhile sacrifice if you want to work in the private sector in my field. Maybe it's more important for industry jobs in biology or something. Personally I think it's a warped system that takes advantage of cheap labor from developing countries. And it feeds itself.…

> But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. That's not really true or fair. You're talking about a person who's done likely 4 years of undergraduate and between 4 and 8 (median 5?) years of graduate studies and gained a Ph.D. This person is without a doubt "an expert" in their field. Does that person still need training? Sure. But who doesn't? You're also talking about someone…

Training is how the low pay is justified. I certainly agree it's not a good deal, more of a supply and demand effect. Are you saying I'm wrong about the definition? It's pretty universal: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21327

I do agree it probably gets used more as an easy way to get experience, the usual thing organizations crave in their new hires. But it isn't the only way. Top graduates can get temporary research faculty positions or even go directly to tenure track. Or in STEM fields, a few years in industry is seen as positive. Industry and Government research labs also have their own "postdoc" positions which can be pretty much normal pay.

Re: More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals

#174

Post by Aunche »

s0rce wrote: post #115
karaterobot wrote: post #96

This is only surprising if you expect that every postdoc should stay in academia, or would want to. Being in academia is not the only way to do research, and is not a prerequisite to using your degree. The private sector is a thing, and postdocs leaving academia can do perfectly good work in their field while actually making a grown up salary.

I think that all postdocs should stay in academia, why else would you do a postdoc? I assume (maybe wrong?) that most of the postdocs had intended to stay when starting the postdoc.

It's significantly easier to get a Visa from academia than work

Re: More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals

#175

Post by godelski »

ricree wrote: post #171
godelski wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. That's not really true or fair. You're talking about a person who's done likely 4 years of undergraduate and between 4 and 8 (median 5?) years of graduate studies and gained a Ph.D. This person is without a doubt "an expert" in their field. Does that person still need training? Sure. But who doesn't? You're also talking about someone…

>And you're expecting them to make pennies? I don't think the person you are replying to was expecting this. Rather, I read their comment as agreeing with you that the benefits and compensation were low enough that few people would be interested in the position except as a stepping stone into a better faculty position.

That usage of "you" was more in the proverbial sense. My bigger disagreement with the parent was about calling it training.

Re: More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals

#176

Post by ziofill »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #129
absolutelastone wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are good arguments about phd's not going into academia. But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. Not a worthwhile sacrifice if you want to work in the private sector in my field. Maybe it's more important for industry jobs in biology or something. Personally I think it's a warped system that takes advantage of cheap labor from developing countries. And it feeds itself.…

That's mostly reasonable. But for some people at least, the PhD doesn't give them all the skills they are looking for, so they might do another post-doc (2-3 years at slightly better than PhD lifestyle), before jumping ship.

That’s what happened to me: PhD in UK -> postdoc 1 -> postdoc 2 -> faculty -> industry.

Re: More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals

#177

Post by __loam »

rednafi wrote: post #168
__loam wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lmao when I was in a PhD program, my French advisor told me something pretty similar. I dropped out, but maybe that is a French thing instead of an academic thing.

A PhD is one thing, but doing it in Europe is a double whammy. People there, in general, love to use culture as an excuse to be rude for no reason. Germans and the French seem to take the crown in that regard.

Gallic pride is a helluva thing

Re: More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals

#179

Post by tacticus »

godelski wrote: post #161
absolutelastone wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are good arguments about phd's not going into academia. But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. Not a worthwhile sacrifice if you want to work in the private sector in my field. Maybe it's more important for industry jobs in biology or something. Personally I think it's a warped system that takes advantage of cheap labor from developing countries. And it feeds itself.…

> But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. That's not really true or fair. You're talking about a person who's done likely 4 years of undergraduate and between 4 and 8 (median 5?) years of graduate studies and gained a Ph.D. This person is without a doubt "an expert" in their field. Does that person still need training? Sure. But who doesn't? You're also talking about someone…

i kinda read the "training" position as someone providing training to others. for which postdocs are very much underpaid and abused by the unis.

Re: More than 40% of postdocs leave academia, study reveals

#180

Post by godelski »

absolutelastone wrote: post #172
godelski wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But a postdoc at a university is an underpaid training position for the most part. That's not really true or fair. You're talking about a person who's done likely 4 years of undergraduate and between 4 and 8 (median 5?) years of graduate studies and gained a Ph.D. This person is without a doubt "an expert" in their field. Does that person still need training? Sure. But who doesn't? You're also talking about someone…

Training is how the low pay is justified. I certainly agree it's not a good deal, more of a supply and demand effect. Are you saying I'm wrong about the definition? It's pretty universal: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21327 I do agree it probably gets used more as an easy way to get experience, the usual thing organizations crave in their new hires. But it isn't the only way. Top graduates can get temporary research…

  > Are you saying I'm wrong about the definition? It's pretty universal: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21327
Yes, I would say it is inaccurate to say that a post doc position is about training. Unless you're referring to them training undergrads and grads.

I think there are 2 key things we need to note about your source

  >> Which items or job requirements are most commonly used by institutions to define postdocs?
This is in the context of __hiring__. So they are looking at listings. I don't think just because you are saying that this job will provide training means the job is a training position. Or what we'd commonly associate with a training program, a junior, or anything like that.

  >> Is intended to provide training in research?
The wording here is important. Personally, if you asked if a postdoc was __intended__ for training, I would agree. But if you asked if I thought you should expect to be trained during a postdoc I'd be more hesitant. Certainly that depends. If I hired you as an L4 at Google, and said there would be training, what would that mean to you? Do you think it would be fair to say? What about at an L5 (senior)? L6? L7? L8? Certainly not at L9 or L10, right?

There's lots of things that have an __intended__ outcome but don't have the outcome. Momentum is a bitch and when we're talking about institutions, well momentum is a really powerful force. So I wouldn't take that source as a cout de eta for concluding that a post doc is about training the post doc. Honestly, I feel like a postdoc is closer to taking a L5 and saying we're training you to become an L6 or eventually L7. And certainly that's not a "training position" in the context of paying someone as if they are inexperienced. You can always gain more experience.

  > Government research labs also have their own "postdoc" positions which can be pretty much normal pay.
FWIW, if you work at a government lab like LBNL or LLNL and take a __staff__ position then your compensation is going to be much closer to the base pay of a big tech. It's quite common to see these people jump ship and triple their salaries (sometimes they return. Often because it is nice to work at labs). I've seen people do this fresh out of PhDs, no postdoc involved. The postdoc positions pay lower.
Post reply on HN