"Don't Become a Scientist!"

[bbrubaker]

So I'm cruising around the internet.... la dee dee da da... and I googled the words: How to become a scientist.

 

The first thing that popped up was this:

 

"Don't Become a Scientist!"

 

by Jonathan I. Katz

Professor of Physics

Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.

 

Which says in part:

...American science no longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school in science it is in the expectation of spending your working life doing scientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve important and interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed, probably when it is too late to choose another career.

 

American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobs for them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the price drops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes the form of many years spent in ``holding pattern'' postdoctoral jobs. Permanent jobs don't pay much less than they used to, but instead of obtaining a real job two years after the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) most young scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have no prospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoral position and move every two years. For many more details consult the Young Scientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of the Washington Monthly...

 

 

 

...Suppose you do eventually obtain a permanent job, perhaps a tenured professorship. The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems. They're not the same thing: you cannot put your past successes in a proposal, because they are finished work, and your new ideas, however original and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that original ideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet been proved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they can be, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you find that it is not what you wanted after all...

(etc)

The whole thing can be found here:

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

 

 

What do you think?

Any truth in that article?

 

Any thing you current scientists want to tell me.... a possible future scientist?

 

Hmmm?

[ajb]

It sounds about right based on my experience so far in hunting for postdocs. Seems very few about.

[CharonY]

This is pretty much old news. Actually getting postdoctoral positions is not a problem per se (at least in most parts of academia). Getting precisely the one you want is a different thing, of course. But the first real problem is to get a faculty position that gives you good chances to become tenured and then getting the tenure itself.

During all these steps (at the latest from the faculty position) your job becomes a strongly administrative one. That is writing grants, preparing all the paperwork (and it is a lot) managing the funds etc. Research is reduced to interaction with your students and postdocs and you will be forced to come up with research that are in line with stuff that actually gets funded.

What most people will say (and it is true) is that becoming a scientist is not a career choice, but a choice of passion. It is not necessarily a good thing too, because even if you are prepared to sacrifice a lot for this kind of career, the odds are still against you. The critical points are if you do not get a faculty position in a timely manner (most say that around 4 years are pushing the limits), or if you do not manage to get tenure after that. In the latter case it is quite possible to be well over 40, unsuitable for industry and jobless in academia. It is not a nice perspective, if you have got a family to supply. Also even if with a faculty position, brace yourself for a lot of infighting.

 

An old but fitting quote:

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue—that is why academic politics are so bitter.

 

Keep in mind, however that one is obviously not limited to academia jobs. While much less (if at all) basic research is done there, there are also industry jobs. They provide less opportunity for active research, on should keep in mind that as an PI with a decent group size you will be also be more of a project manager (and teacher!) in academia.

[Mokele]

I found it a bit hit and miss, in part because my field is so different (we're relatively new, 'sexy', even really top-level labs graduate few students compared to other fields, and as a result most post-docs I know manage to find jobs within 4 years, often in 2).

 

But, while the details may differ, the essay is broadly right - the path from student to scientist is long, hard, wrought with uncertainty, highly competitive, and leaves those who don't make it without much of a consolation prize. Even once you do make it, it's no land of milk and honey.

 

However, there is one thing that has been omitted, and it's a surprising omission, since it's one of the few absolute rules of the universe - Everything Sucks. Every job has good parts and crappy parts. Sure, as a scientist, you have to deal with annoying academic feuds, applying for grants, etc., but if you go work a regular job, you have to deal with annoying co-workers, mindless paperwork, cramped cubicles, etc.

 

The key is to figure out what you really want. Does money matter? Do you want a family? What do you want out of a job beyond money and benefits? What level of supervision are you comfortable with? What level of competition? How much of a chance are you willing to take on chasing a dream, and do you have a fallback plan? What sort of working environment do you want, and what sort of people do you want to work with?

 

Personally, I decided it's worth it, for a variety of complex reasons, not the least of which being the desire to associate with people who are completely unfazed by the casual use of the phrase "dead baby rhinoceros" in a sentence.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Mokele
Correcting excessive use of 'However,...'

[Syntho-sis]

It's a means to an end...

 

We're all cats..

 

Let's not get killed.

 

Personally when someone tries to identify reasons for not doing something, that only makes me want to do it more.

[CharonY]

I think there is one real problem with an academic career though. It is not valid for all disciplines, however the longer you remain on an academic path, the less attractive you become.

What I mean is that if you make the jump to an industrial position, your market value increases with industry experience. Unfortunately making postdocs actually decreases your value. It is worse if you want to go into industry but even in academia, after 4 years or so, you are not as attractive to hire anymore (compared to an equal with at most 4 years). This part makes future planning more complicated than an industrial job. It is simply harder to switch, if one has made on or two bad postdocs. Not impossible, mind you, but much harder than switching industrial positions.

Also, there is really an oversupply of scientists. Of course, if you are in a sweet spot, it may be different. But IIRC at peak times only around 25% of postdoctoral researchers eventually attain tenure. That is the rest will have to scramble for other jobs eventually.

[bbrubaker]

What is IIRC? What is a PI?

 

 

Also what field are you in Mokele? Zoology?

 

 

So if 75% end up in industry anyways why are people still trying for Academic careers?

Whats the advantage? A chance at tenure?

 

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/unemployed_scientists_prove_dog

Edited June 11, 2009 by bbrubaker

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What is IIRC? What is a PI?

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly

PI = Principal Investigator

[iNow]

Also what field are you in Mokele? Zoology?

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/member.php?u=2842

Favorite Area of Science

Herpetology / paleobiology / biomechanics

 

Biography

PhD student studying frog jumping and muscle biomechanics

[CharonY]

So if 75% end up in industry anyways why are people still trying for Academic careers?

 

There are several reasons. The most obvious one a passion for science. Even with the limitations of grants you still have more freedom in academia than in industry (if you do science at all there). At the grad level it is often just not well though out. Whenever I get new students into the lab I ask them, what they want to do with their PhD and what is their ultimate goal. Relatively few really know what they want at that point and quite a lot see it as a continuation of school.

[swansont]

American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobs for them.

 

And yet, Unemployment Rate of U.S. Scientists and Engineersrs Drops to Record Low 2.5% in 2006 (pdf) And there are plenty more studies that show low unemployment rates among PhD scientists

 

Somebody is wrong, and it's Katz. He's assuming that the only job is that of an academic teaching at a university, and while that career path is oversubscribed, it's not what the majority of scientists do. The big point he makes that's IMO on target has to do with unreasonable expectations of what your job is going to be. If your dream is to become a professor at a university and run a big, successful research program and spend all day in the lab, know that you have a tough battle ahead of you and you most likely won't end up where you want to be.

[CharonY]

Well, the article was purely from an academic view point, isn't it? As such it is not really wrong. The only point where he was really wrong is about the grad school, as you can still get jobs with a PhD outside of academia. This requires a careful choice on the area you make the PhD, of course.

The low unemployment rate for scientists is a bit misleading, as the majority are not working as scientists anymore (at least not in the traditional sense as being actively pursuing research). However, grad school does prepare one for jobs in a more indirect way, including the ability to eventually solve problems independently, building up work ethics (unless one is a workaholic to begin with), etc. As such it can provide important skills that will improve once chances in any job market. However, do not expect to become or stay a scientist. (Although we can debate what defines a scientist, I am limiting myself here to people actively pursuing research).

[swansont]

And that's my point — it was from an academic point of view, and falsely implies that there aren't jobs outside of that, and that if you apply your abilities to some other job that you've wasted your time in school.

[CharonY]

Oh well, then we are in agreement. Get a degree, but do not aim to become a scientist. Something like that.

[bbrubaker]

I'm at a loss to imagine what kind of industry work someone with a PhD in

Biology (or Entomology. Etc.) could do.

 

I'm sure it'll be related to their field but can you give me a few examples of work

outside the lab that these people might fall into that still utilizes their PhD knowledge?

Edited June 12, 2009 by bbrubaker

[swansont]

I'm at a loss to imagine what kind of industry work someone with a PhD in

Biology (or Entomology. Etc.) could do.

 

Pharmaceutical/biotech?

[sockyee]

Whatever it is, that should not be use as a reason to discourage people from taking up career course related to Science subjects. Having a passion towards a topic that can stimulate thinking and logical sense a way of looking at things is definitely not a loss. I personally know a friend who is a Science (biology graduate) is now doing well with her own business providing consultancy on ISO certification and training programs.

[Syntho-sis]

I'm at a loss to imagine what kind of industry work someone with a PhD in

Biology (or Entomology. Etc.) could do.

 

I'm sure it'll be related to their field but can you give me a few examples of work

outside the lab that these people might fall into that still utilizes their PhD knowledge?

 

I'm pretty sure Russia and China would looooove to have them around...

 

You know, for "Research purposes."

 

*coughs* biological weapons...

 

[Mokele]

I'm at a loss to imagine what kind of industry work someone with a PhD in

Biology (or Entomology. Etc.) could do.

 

Depends on the sub-field. For molecular folks, there's always biotech and pharma as swansont suggested. For eco folks, there's environmental consulting. And of course, there's always teaching.

 

 

Another point worth making: you can be an active, even productive and respected researcher, outside of a major research university. I know of severalwell-respected researchers in my field who teach at smaller colleges, rely on smaller grants, etc, and still do great work. Maybe this is an oddity of my field - you can do entire papers with no more funding than a few hundred for animal care and a video camera - but still, there's more options out there than being a big-shot at a huge research university.

[CharonY]

Well, obviously my research need are somewhat higher, and I have not heard much about it. But many positions are actually there allowing research? I was only wondering whether they are numerically significant.

I'm sure it'll be related to their field but can you give me a few examples of work

outside the lab that these people might fall into that still utilizes their PhD knowledge?

Well, in the industry arena you will normally do things that are not related to your PhD stuff. With a little exception on some techniques, maybe (e.g. knowing how a HPLC or MS works). This is basically true for all areas, including biotech. Of course there may be the rare fit in which you developed something in your PhD and the company is working precisely on the same problem(s). This is extremely rare, though.

This is precisely why companies do not want you to do postdocs, in which you could broaden your knowledge, but they want you to get into their labs to learn the stuff (and only that stuff) that are relevant to them. Essentially there is a gap between academic and industrial research. The latter will usually not be a continuation of the former.

Edited June 15, 2009 by CharonY

[ennui]

That article was depressing to read. I'd always fancied becoming a university research fellow and carrying out experiments at that level, but the realities are a huge deterrent. It reinforces what I've seen in my own lab: that my supervisor spends most of her time applying for grants just to keep things financially afloat.

 

There was a good documentary on BBC4 a few years ago called "Under Laboratory Conditions"; it showcased a variety of different scientists and had them describe what it was like to be a modern-day researcher in academia. In a nutshell, there were enormous financial pressures attached to being a scientist, but the people had chosen their job because it was what got them out of bed in the morning. The programme is still on Youtube in full - it's pretty interesting.

[CharonY]

Doesn't mean that one should not try. However one should be aware of

a) what a scientist's job will eventually be (i.e. no lab work in the long run) and

b) what the odds are of getting tenured academic positions (i.e. not that good).

[CaptainPanic]

The article is about "Science". That's quite broad isn't it?

 

There are 2 points to be made here:

 

1. The field of science makes a big difference:

- I can imagine that if you have just obtained a PhD in Cultural anthropology, it might be hard to start a career.

- But there are also fields, such as my own (Chemical Engineering) that have a worldwide shortage of employees, and great career opportunities.

 

2. The organization one works in:

- Universities and non-profit research institutes offer the best scientific careers with the most freedom for individual researchers. However, the pay isn't always great. The institutes themselves constantly have to search for money too.

- Commercial research companies and industry offer more money, but you will have deadlines and you simply research whatever your boss wants you to do.

 

But my opinion about the whole thing is:

"Damn, they actually pay me that much to do the only thing I want to do in my life? Wonderful! I would have done this for free :D" (Don't tell my boss, please).

[Severian]

I would say the OPs view matched my own pretty well. If I could magically turn 17 again, I would do something else.

[D H]

The reason academia produces more PhDs than are needed by academia is glaringly obvious: Organizations outside of academia like to hire PhDs. They like to do so to the extent that they funnel immense amounts of money to academia to produce an apparent (but not actual) surplus of PhDs. The surplus is only an apparent surplus:

Unemployment Rate of U.S. Scientists and Engineersrs Drops to Record Low 2.5% in 2006 (pdf) And there are plenty more studies that show low unemployment rates among PhD scientists

 

Katz' complaint is essentially a nostalgic wish for times that never existed. Academics did not have access to the cool toys they play with now back in the day (way back in the day) when academia only produced PhDs in number corresponding to the needs of academia.

 

A better interpretation of Katz' complaint is that one should think twice about pursuing a PhD if up front one intends to ignore most post-PhD employment opportunities.