This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
U.S. pushes for more scientists, but the jobs aren’t there
Anonymously contributed:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post article
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I like the description of the post-doc pyramid scheme. There has been books criticizing how the system works. Today, science is very different from our old antiquated notions of a lofty noble profession. Today, it's more like a business. In fact, several friends who went into academia (engineering disciplines) described how they think and operate as if they are small businesses, bringing in revenue (funding) to churn out product (research and publications), and being aggressive about PR, messaging, networking, influence, teaming, forming alliances (mafias) and stakeholder engagement in order to keep the cycle going.
This notion of ending up as a perpetual postdoc can be scary and daunting. Such a situation may reflect (1) narrow specialization and the lack of options available for someone in a certain field, (2) lack of willingness to explore other professions given the inability to advance in a field, or not knowing when to change priorities and just move on, or (3)not willing or able to do what it takes to get to the top of an applicant pile.
If people go into science or engineering thinking that it will be an experience that is completely objective and impartial and free of "marketing," then they are likely to experience heartache. Merit is obviously important, but it must also be pitched, and the messaging must be communicated effectively.
The science "industry" is a competitive one, and no one should expect that the system is perfect or that it is entirely fair. A larger pool of scientists means more competition for the few spots that open up at labs and universities each year. And it is no one else's resposibility (especially not government) to keep all those extra scientists employed. It is up to the individual to set their own realistic expectations before they enter the fray, to have some flexibility in how much they are willing to deviate from their original plans, and to have contingency options when things don't go as desired.
My experience (as well as those of many experienced colleagues) are that PhDs whose graduate experience involved successfully handling a "drop you in the ocean, you figure out how to swim" "figure out how to find your way out of the forest" approach by their advisors, tended to be very good scientists but also excellent problem solvers all throughout their careers.
Those who wanted/needed active direction, relied heavily on the contributions of their advisor/colleagues or were unable/unwilling to solve problems given uncertainty, tended to struggle.
Most PhDs have more 'normal' experiences (with responsible and not-so-negligent "harsh lesson" advisors) somewhere between the two extremes, and generally performing very well later in their careers. But examples from the extremes are quite amusing to hear.
What was your experience like? What advice would you share with those PhDs in the pipeline and ready to enter the science/engineering job market?
Some people I know (some in academia now) had some interesting stories about doing their PhD under Feynmann at Caltech. One individual: Student meets with Advisor (Feynmann) to discuss a problem to work on. Student goes off and works hard on it for a while and makes good progress. Surely proud of himself for the accomplishment. Goes back to show advisor only to get the response "oh I already solved it."
5 comments:
I like the description of the post-doc pyramid scheme. There has been books criticizing how the system works. Today, science is very different from our old antiquated notions of a lofty noble profession. Today, it's more like a business. In fact, several friends who went into academia (engineering disciplines) described how they think and operate as if they are small businesses, bringing in revenue (funding) to churn out product (research and publications), and being aggressive about PR, messaging, networking, influence, teaming, forming alliances (mafias) and stakeholder engagement in order to keep the cycle going.
This notion of ending up as a perpetual postdoc can be scary and daunting. Such a situation may reflect (1) narrow specialization and the lack of options available for someone in a certain field, (2) lack of willingness to explore other professions given the inability to advance in a field, or not knowing when to change priorities and just move on, or (3)not willing or able to do what it takes to get to the top of an applicant pile.
If people go into science or engineering thinking that it will be an experience that is completely objective and impartial and free of "marketing," then they are likely to experience heartache. Merit is obviously important, but it must also be pitched, and the messaging must be communicated effectively.
The science "industry" is a competitive one, and no one should expect that the system is perfect or that it is entirely fair. A larger pool of scientists means more competition for the few spots that open up at labs and universities each year. And it is no one else's resposibility (especially not government) to keep all those extra scientists employed. It is up to the individual to set their own realistic expectations before they enter the fray, to have some flexibility in how much they are willing to deviate from their original plans, and to have contingency options when things don't go as desired.
My experience (as well as those of many experienced colleagues) are that PhDs whose graduate experience involved successfully handling a "drop you in the ocean, you figure out how to swim" "figure out how to find your way out of the forest" approach by their advisors, tended to be very good scientists but also excellent problem solvers all throughout their careers.
Those who wanted/needed active direction, relied heavily on the contributions of their advisor/colleagues or were unable/unwilling to solve problems given uncertainty, tended to struggle.
Most PhDs have more 'normal' experiences (with responsible and not-so-negligent "harsh lesson" advisors) somewhere between the two extremes, and generally performing very well later in their careers. But examples from the extremes are quite amusing to hear.
What was your experience like? What advice would you share with those PhDs in the pipeline and ready to enter the science/engineering job market?
Some people I know (some in academia now) had some interesting stories about doing their PhD under Feynmann at Caltech. One individual: Student meets with Advisor (Feynmann) to discuss a problem to work on. Student goes off and works hard on it for a while and makes good progress. Surely proud of himself for the accomplishment. Goes back to show advisor only to get the response "oh I already solved it."
Or better yet: "That's nice. I'm off to sabattical in Venice for two years. Good luck."
That whole idea of the career postdoc... really gives me the willies.
Post a Comment