Skip to main content

U.S. pushes for more scientists, but the jobs aren’t there

Anonymously contributed: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Post article

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.
Anonymous said…
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?
Anonymous said…
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."
Anonymous said…
Or better yet: "That's nice. I'm off to sabattical in Venice for two years. Good luck."
Anonymous said…
That whole idea of the career postdoc... really gives me the willies.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!