Hello PhD

A few generations ago, you could probably graduate from a PhD program and immediately land yourself a junior faculty position at a nearby university. But as grad school enrollment grew, a new quasi-professional job-description emerged in the nebulous middle ground between student and professor.

Lacking a better name, we just called them ‘postdocs’. It was an academic adolescence that implied they were ready to leave the nest, but not quite ready to fly freely.

Over time, academic institutions realized they had a good thing going. Here was a group of highly-skilled scientists who could churn out papers and grants with little oversight. And as a bonus, you didn’t have to pay them a salary commensurate with their position! They were ‘putting in the time’ in the hope that they, too, could one day run their own lab. “Think of it as an ‘investment.'”

The one-year postdoc/job search evolved into a two-year affair. Then it grew to two two-year affairs (in different labs, of course, so you can broaden your horizons!). Now, a postdoc may last 5 or 6 years, earning around $55,000 per year, and there’s still no guarantee of a faculty job light at the end of the tunnel.

But about ten years ago, something changed. The number of PhDs continued to rise, but the proportion of those graduates pursuing a postdoc declined.

What caused this shift, and what does it mean for academia and research in general?

We talked with a journalist who has been tracking the trend for years.

This week, we’re joined by Jonathan Wosen. He’s the West Coast biotech & life sciences reporter for STAT News, and holds a PhD in Immunology from Stanford University.

Over the last few years, Jonathan has been tracking the ‘exodus’ of early-career life scientists from academia. They’re foregoing the postdoc to find jobs in industry where they can often earn six-figure salaries.

We talk about the data behind these demographic shifts, and how a growing biotech industry has driven the trend.

In one article, an academic observer describes the change as ‘a tipping point.’ If there truly is a fundamental shift in how academic labs recruit and train postdocs, it could have wide-ranging impacts on academia, career opportunities, and the pace of scientific discovery.

You can read more of Jonathan’s work on this subject in the links below. Students and employees of academic institutions can use code ACADEMIC75 for 75% off of a subscription.

‘The tipping point is coming’: Unprecedented exodus of young life scientists is shaking up academia

Life scientists’ flight to biotech labs stalls important academic research

With biotech in a slump, the industry’s job market is upside down

Josh and Dan traveled to Washington DC for the Society for Neuroscience Conference 2023.

We chatted with students, postdocs, and faculty about everything from grad school applications to industry jobs to work-life-balance. And we recorded this special update from the hall of posters and vendors.

Here are a few photos from our vantage point at the Promega booth. There really were posters and vendors as far as the eye could see in both directions!

Karla already has a successful career. After completing her training, she’s worked as a pelvic-floor physical therapist for over ten years! Her patients love her, and she loves serving them.

But no matter how skilled she becomes at her craft, there’s still a limit to how many people she can help. A PT, working in a clinic, can see only so many patients per day if she wants to give each one the time they deserve.

That’s one reason Karla decided to go back to school to earn a PhD. She wanted to find a way to continue serving her patients, while also advancing the practice of physical therapists everywhere through research and teaching.

But quitting her job to enroll in a traditional PhD program wouldn’t work for her patients, or her lifestyle. She had to find another way.

Karla Wente

This week, we talk with Karla Wente, PT, DPT, WCS, CLT (whew, that’s a lot of degrees!) about her quest for a PhD. She’s currently enrolled in an online Health Sciences PhD program at Rush University.

Karla tells us how she made the big decision to go back to school after ten years of clinical practice. We talk about her career opportunities, the financial impacts of going back to school, and learn more about how an online PhD program works.

If you enjoy this episode, check out Karla’s work with www.thefirstsixweeks.com, where she and a team of clinicians support new parents during the first few weeks postpartum.

Graduate training has many milestones, but a few stand stronger in memory due to their importance.

You may remember the day you passed your comprehensive exams, officially becoming a ‘PhD Candidate.’ Or maybe you’ll remember the day you saw a paper you co-authored published in your favorite journal. 

And of course, every PhD remembers their defense – presenting years worth of work to an audience and receiving the committees’ blessing to graduate.

After each event, it’s important to take a moment to celebrate the achievement before pushing toward the next goal.  Maybe that means gathering with friends, popping a bottle of bubbly, and remembering the road that brought you to this point.

Well, at least that’s what we do with a milestone.  This week, we celebrate 100 Episodes of Hello PhD with a few of the friends we’ve met along the way.

Make a Toast

We start the Episode with a half-bottle of Guy Larmandier Cramant Grand Cru  Brut Blanc de Blancs.  This champagne is bubbly and light, with a touch of sweetness.

Just like our banter. ::ba dum shish::

And then, the guests begin to arrive!

Emily Roberts, PhD

First, we’re joined by Emily Roberts from Personal Finance for PhDs.  She’s been a frequent guest on the show, and she shares her secret for the perfect deviled eggs: get someone else to peel them.

She also gives us some quick pointers on tracking your spending and creating a budget in graduate school, and why that’s so important. “Tracking your spending will actually help you change your behavior passively.” she says.  “Graduate students should keep an eye on their irregular expenses.”

Emily also told us about her new podcast covering personal finance – you can check it out here: http://pfforphds.com/podcast/

Next, we’re visited by Randy Ribaudo and Larry Petcovic, the minds and personalities behind SciPhD.  Randy and Larry travel the country teaching scientists how to develop and translate their skills into an industry setting.

Randy Ribaudo, PhD

“Scientists don’t necessarily take advantage of the incredible experiences they have in solving problems, managing risk and delivering reliable results, which is really what companies are looking for,” Randy reminded us.

Larry adds, “In todays world, you are really also data analysts.  The data game is becoming bigger and bigger.  In many ways you have an advantage because you have experience already with working with data when you go into that first job.  A lot of folks don’t.”

To hear more tips for making it in industry, you can listen to Episode 079 or catch Randy and Larry in one of their on-site programs.

Mónica Feliú-Mójer, PhD

This week, we answer a listener’s question about whether he should pursue schooling beyond a Master’s degree.

Plus – once your formal education is complete, how can you continue to focus on learning? What steps should we take to become life-long learners?

Adam writes:

I have been given an exciting opportunity to continue my education and pursue a PhD, working with the professor who sponsored my masters research project. It would require moving across the country to work in the lab (since I was able to do my masters remotely). That would require me to either quit my job and just work on my PhD full time, or to switch roles within my (large) company and drop to part-time work while doing my PhD research. Either way I would be sacrificing my full-time salary for several years to either be living on just a stipend (a big lifestyle change, financially), or having to juggle PhD and professional work at the same time. Do you have any advice to help me decide if the sacrifices are worth it to continue my education? I am still unsure if the time, money, energy, and lifestyle changes to get a PhD will pay off, or if my masters will be sufficient, and I am struggling to figure that out. 

We offer advice on how to assess his long-term career goals, and help him consider the cost/benefit analysis of more schooling. For example, there’s data on how much a PhD can increase your salary over someone with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree.

But wait, there’s more! Adam also wants to know how to continue his development once the formal schooling is over:

I want to always be a life-long-learner. I’ve been involved in formal education for most of my life to help guide my learning. Now that I am not in school anymore (at least for now), what  tips do you have to help me stay current in my field? How can I always be learning and growing in my knowledge, exposure, and skills, especially in a field as diverse and complex as robotics?

We have lot’s of ideas for ways that Adam (and the rest of us) can stay engaged in learning. From attending conferences to mentoring students to maker-spaces, there are plenty of opportunities to continue learning, if you’re willing to put in the work.

Just The Abstract is a new series where we explore a topic in a short, focused episode that’s easy to share. This week, we find out why most science PhD programs stopped requiring the GRE, and whether they’ll demote your application if you fail to provide a score.

We take our inspiration this week from a thread in the r/gradschool subredit.

knightshade017 writes:

I’m currently at a point where I’m applying to PhD programs in behavioral neuroscience, brain and cognitive psychology, and similar fields. Most (if not all) of the programs I am interested in have the GRE as optional, but I am a bit weary to say I won’t take it altogether because I don’t know if it will ding my chances of getting in… Any insight and honest thoughts/opinions would be greatly appreciated!

We cover the recent history of “GRExit” – a data-driven movement to remove the GRE as a barrier to graduate school after learning that the test is not a good predictor of research success.

Instead, application committees focus much more on prior research experience. How you’ve fared in your previous labs is a much better predictor of how you’ll do in the future. Unsurprisingly, a GRE that tests your ability to complete word antonyms and find the length of the sides of a 3-4-5 triangle are not indicators of success.

Here are some resources we mentioned in the show:

‘GRExit’ gains momentum as Ph.D. programs drop exam requirement

Predictors of Student Productivity in Biomedical Graduate School Applications

And here are a few episodes with related content:

112: Listener Mailbag – Leaving Home, Avoiding the GRE, Finding Collaborators, et al!

065: Does the GRE Predict Which Students Will Succeed?

023: Seriously, can we ditch the GRE already?

At the end of the show, we mentioned the recent tragedy at UNC where a graduate student killed his faculty advisor. If you, or someone you know, is experiencing a mental health crisis, there is help within reach. This guide from the NIH has links and phone numbers for crisis support and mental health resources: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/find-help

Here’s a controversial idea: what if graduate school finished on a predictable schedule the way (checks notes) every other academic training program does!

Since kindergarten, your education has had fixed milestones. You knew it would take 12 years to graduate from high school, 4 for college, and 2 for a Master’s or an Associate’s Degree.

Even medical school takes a predictable 4 years, with an additional 3-6 for residency and fellowship, depending on the field.

So why does graduate school take between 4 and 10 years, with a lot of discretion, uncertainty, and mental anguish in between?

Start the Clock

This week on the show, we explore the strange, but sticky, notion that graduate training should be open-ended with no fixed program of development.

If we could sacrifice that sacred cow, we might be able to design some requirements and milestones that feel less arbitrary and can consistently churn out bright, capable scientists.

Imagine a world in which your PhD program was limited to 5 years.  What type of training would build your research skills and make you ready for the workplace?

The fact is, our current system is extremely variable – each student has a unique project with individual successes and failures.  One student might sail through in 3 years, while another is forced to change labs and stays through year 9.

Is the first student smarter? Better equipped to succeed?  

Or is the second student better trained by the additional time?

The reality is that ‘time to PhD’ is not synonymous with skill or training.  And if time isn’t correlated with success, then there’s an opportunity to tighten up the training schedule without sacrificing pedagogical quality.

We share a handful of ideas and concerns about a fixed-term PhD, but we’d love to hear what you think!  Is it worth standardizing scientific training, and where should we start?

Breakfast of Champions

Fry up some bacon, pull down a coffee mug, and pour yourself a glass of breakfast. It’s the Morning Smack Imperial Milk Stout from Three Taverns Craft Brewery in Decatur, GA.

With maple-notes and a solid sweetness, this stout drinks like a dessert. And at 8% ABV, it’s probably wiser to save it for after dinner.

You can still sip it from a mug, though!

This week, we’re opening the mailbag once again to answer YOUR burning questions!

Change of Plans

We start with Allen, who was awarded a grant based on a research proposal he submitted BEFORE joining the lab. When he finished the summer rotation, it didn’t turn out the way he expected.

I have now been asked to write a report about how I used the grant for the grant committee. While I did learn some practical biology skills through this internship, and by that fulfilled the terms of my grant, it was by far not as much as I hoped for, and I can’t help feel a bit guilty about it…

He’s wondering whether he should have alerted the grant committee about the changes, or whether it’s okay that the research didn’t go as planned. We talk about the difference between project-based and person-based grants. In Allen’s case, they were probably funding HIS development as a scientist, so his experience fulfilled the terms of the award.

Making the Most of a Master’s

Next up, an anonymous listener wonders how to get support as a Master’s student in a department that seems geared toward training PhDs.

What can I do as a Masters’ student to navigate my way through academia since all the online and official activities are for PhD students?

We argue that training and mentorship shouldn’t change if you’re a Master’s student vs. a PhD student. In fact, you could be an undergrad or high-school summer student and STILL deserve communication, mentorship, and training.

We advise the listener to reach out to other Master’s students at the university, and either learn about the existing resources, or work as a group to create them. There’s strength in numbers, and you may be able to generate the support structures that all students need.

Bad Lab Hands

Finally, we hear from Lisa who feels like she understands the science, but she just can’t make the experiments work.

My technical skills are leagues behind everyone else in my lab. I have great ideas and I’ll suggest things to colleagues and they’ll get it work just fine, but for whatever reason, when I do things they always seem to end up a mess.

Lisa isn’t alone – there are aspects of research that each of us struggle to understand or perform. It takes real courage to ask for help, but that’s what she should do.

By shadowing her lab mates, or asking them to watch over her techniques, she can quickly make progress toward her goals. It’s likely that what she calls ‘bad lab hands’ is really just a subtle change in technique, or a skipped step in the protocol.

Wherever scientists gather, there is sure to be a poster session. You may see them at major scientific symposia, as well as your university’s departmental retreat.

To keep things interesting, a lot of conference organizers will host a poster competition. Entrants will have a chance to present their poster to a judge, who will score each one on the scientific content, clarity, and style.

Some poster contests offer cash awards, but either way, it makes a great line on your CV.

This week, we share an insider’s guide on how to craft your poster and take home the big prize.

Read the *#%$ Manual

We’re chatting once again with Dr. Zen Faulkes of the Better Posters substack. Dr. Zen has presented posters AND acted as a judge in competitions. He’s even written a book on the subject – Better Posters: Plan, Design, and Present an Academic Poster.

We start the conversation by exploring the benefits of entering a poster competition.

Aside from the modest cash prizes, it can look great on a CV, especially if you’re early in your training. You may not have a lot of papers yet, so having a poster award shows that someone has reviewed your science favorably.

The good news is that a winning strategy doesn’t have to be mysterious. Many poster competitions will share their score sheets or rubrics so that you can know exactly how the judges will be assessing your work. Just type ‘score sheet’ and the name of your conference into Google and you’re likely to get a hit.

Often, the judging criteria center around how clearly you’ve shared your hypothesis, methods, and results. For example, here are a few point-worthy items on a representative score sheet:

* Concise background information

* Clearly stated objective or hypothesis

* Concise explanation of experimental procedures

* Conclusions clearly support or refute objectives and/or hypothesis

* etc.

These criteria are grouped under headings, and the point totals are right there for you to exploit and gamify. For example, the previous rubric only assigns 10 points out of 100 to “Student Interaction”, while this competition gives a full 30 points to the presentation.

They’re different ball-games, and you need to learn to play by the rules you’re given.

We discuss many more topics of poster design and presentation including how to craft a title, how to engage your audience, and why you should always ask for colleagues to review your work before presenting at the competition.

The scientific poster is an academic oddity. Where else do thousands of people gather around hundreds of large-format printouts to talk about esoteric subjects!?

Posters might be the most common form of scientific communication on the planet. In your career, you will probably present more posters than talks or journal articles. And nearly anyone can create a poster – from an undergraduate on a summer rotation to a tenured professor.

So it’s a good idea to hone your skills at creating and presenting scientific posters – you’ll have lots of opportunities to practice!

This week, we’re joined by Dr. Zen Faulkes, Professor at McMaster University and author of Better Posters: Plan, Design, and Present an Academic Poster. He also writes the Better Posters substack.

Dr. Zen has seen a lot of posters over the years, and he’s devoted considerable time to documenting the do’s and don’ts of effective poster design. We sat down to talk through some common misconceptions that crop up in many academic posters.

Bust These Myths!

Here are some of those myths, in no particular order:

1. “Posters are worse than talks.”

2. “The point of a poster is to convey information.”

3. “Use bullet points to make it easy to read.”

4. “24 point minimum text size.”

5. “Put institutional logos on your poster.”

Dr. Zen walks us through the common mistakes he finds throughout academia, and then gives us a better way to leverage this powerful medium.

Rather than being an information dumping ground, he suggests that you think about your poster primarily as a conversation-starter. Your goal is to invite a viewer in, get to know why they’re interested in your work, and then use the poster as a jumping-off point, rather than a conversational dead-end.

And rather than figuring out how to fit MORE content into your limited space the way this poster does, he suggests that you look for things to REMOVE from the page. Any element that doesn’t contribute to the central goal of facilitating the conversation needs to go. That ruthless editing will leave you more space to make the remaining data larger and more legible.