Hello PhD

It sounds like a simple question: how many postdocs are there in the United States?

Maybe you want to know because you ARE a postdoc and you’re thinking about what kind of competition you’ll face for a faculty position.

Maybe you’re a program manager at the NIH, and you’d like to direct extra funding toward STEM training and postdoctoral positions.

Or maybe you’re a university administrator, and you’re wondering how the new labor laws will affect salaries this year.

Well, too bad. No one actually knows how many postdocs there are.

We Love to Count Things! Ah ah ah!

And that’s the surprising answer.  In an era where we collect data on everything from the number of steps you took today to the composition of soil on Mars, no one seems to know how many postdocs we’re training at any given moment.

Of course, there are ‘estimates’, but they range from under 40,000 to over 90,000!  How is it possible that we don’t have a better understanding of our scientific workforce and training outcomes?

Participants in the Future of Research Symposium think we can do better.  They’ve called for better accounting and transparency for postdoctoral positions in universities across the country.  Only by tracking postdoc training and career outcomes can we improve the process for all scientists.

When Life Gives You Lemons

Also this week, we clear out the back of the fridge with a Shock Top Lemon Shandy.  The label proudly proclaims that it contains ‘natural lemonade flavor.’  Not lemon.  Not even lemon flavor.  But ‘lemonade flavor.’

Uhhhhhm…. No thanks.

 

It sounds like a simple question: how many postdocs are there in the United States?

Maybe you want to know because you ARE a postdoc and you’re thinking about what kind of competition you’ll face for a faculty position.

Maybe you’re a program manager at the NIH, and you’d like to direct extra funding toward STEM training and postdoctoral positions.

Or maybe you’re a university administrator, and you’re wondering how the new labor laws will affect salaries this year.

Well, too bad. No one actually knows how many postdocs there are.

We Love to Count Things! Ah ah ah!

And that’s the surprising answer.  In an era where we collect data on everything from the number of steps you took today to the composition of soil on Mars, no one seems to know how many postdocs we’re training at any given moment.

Of course, there are ‘estimates’, but they range from under 40,000 to over 90,000!  How is it possible that we don’t have a better understanding of our scientific workforce and training outcomes?

Participants in the Future of Research Symposium think we can do better.  They’ve called for better accounting and transparency for postdoctoral positions in universities across the country.  Only by tracking postdoc training and career outcomes can we improve the process for all scientists.

When Life Gives You Lemons

Also this week, we clear out the back of the fridge with a Shock Top Lemon Shandy.  The label proudly proclaims that it contains ‘natural lemonade flavor.’  Not lemon.  Not even lemon flavor.  But ‘lemonade flavor.’

Uhhhhhm…. No thanks.

 

You’ve worked hard in your biopharma job, and you really love the position.  The team is passionate and dynamic, the product is starting to make an impact in the market, and you begin to imagine your long-term relationship with the company.

But there’s one problem: it seems like no one with a Bachelor’s Degree can move up in the organization.  PhDs from outside the company are hired into management positions, while you and your colleagues get passed over for promotions.

What’s going on? And do you really need a PhD to get ahead in your industry job?

Go Back to Get Ahead?

This week on the show, we field a question from a listener working at a biotech company who wonders whether she needs to go back to school to move forward at work.

Dear Dan and Josh,

I’m someone who is considering applying to grad school, and I am a big fan of your podcast. Your honesty and advice about the grad school experience have helped me greatly in considering this next big step.

I have been out of undergrad for two years working as a research associate at a biotech startup. I am surrounded by optimism for the future of our product and the growth of the company, and it is exciting to imagine a future without ever going back to school.

I am not alone here – more and more college grads are joining companies out of college and taking time off before getting degrees. What is new is that many people I encounter who have made this decision have a negative view of academia and do not want to go back to school. They are learning and solving scientific problems at a rapid pace on the job; why re-enter the “slog” of academia?

On the other hand, though, managers at my company tell me there is opportunity for those without PhDs to grow and have a significant role in the company (the managers often have PhDs), I have observed these companies continuing to preference PhDs in the hiring process.

My question is, is there opportunity for growth and achievement for the many of us who have chosen not to return to school? Or does the PhD still represent a unique skill set that cannot be achieved outside of academia?

The simple answer is: no, there’s not some magical transformation that occurs in graduate school.  You can have similar formative experiences in industry and elsewhere.

But the simple answer doesn’t explain the listener’s experience at work.  Despite the fact that employees can learn on the job, there is a cognitive bias in the working world that equates a doctorate with almost mythic abilities.

Like all biases, PhD-reverence is a mental shortcut that can have some unintended consequences.

For example, a hiring manager might overlook an extremely talented candidate with a Bachelor’s and years of experience and award the job to someone with a PhD fresh out of school.  The first candidate may have more training and sharper abilities, but that takes precious time to assess.  A PhD looks impressive with one glance at a CV.

At the end of the day, PhD-bias is a palpable force in the workplace, even if your research field is irrelevant to the current position!

You can certainly advance without the degree, but it will take persistence, strong networking skills, and a willingness to advocate for yourself with your managers.  If you can impress enough of your supervisors and are willing to ask to move up, you can make progress.

But if you decide to go back to school, make sure you choose a program and a lab that will support your career goals.  Look for universities with a strong Technology Transfer Office, and find a PI that understands your desire to work in industry.  Not all of them do, and you’ll need their support to finish the degree and get back to work.

It’s the trail mix of beer

You’ve worked hard in your biopharma job, and you really love the position.  The team is passionate and dynamic, the product is starting to make an impact in the market, and you begin to imagine your long-term relationship with the company.

But there’s one problem: it seems like no one with a Bachelor’s Degree can move up in the organization.  PhDs from outside the company are hired into management positions, while you and your colleagues get passed over for promotions.

What’s going on? And do you really need a PhD to get ahead in your industry job?

Go Back to Get Ahead?

This week on the show, we field a question from a listener working at a biotech company who wonders whether she needs to go back to school to move forward at work.

Dear Dan and Josh,

I’m someone who is considering applying to grad school, and I am a big fan of your podcast. Your honesty and advice about the grad school experience have helped me greatly in considering this next big step.

I have been out of undergrad for two years working as a research associate at a biotech startup. I am surrounded by optimism for the future of our product and the growth of the company, and it is exciting to imagine a future without ever going back to school.

I am not alone here – more and more college grads are joining companies out of college and taking time off before getting degrees. What is new is that many people I encounter who have made this decision have a negative view of academia and do not want to go back to school. They are learning and solving scientific problems at a rapid pace on the job; why re-enter the “slog” of academia?

On the other hand, though, managers at my company tell me there is opportunity for those without PhDs to grow and have a significant role in the company (the managers often have PhDs), I have observed these companies continuing to preference PhDs in the hiring process.

My question is, is there opportunity for growth and achievement for the many of us who have chosen not to return to school? Or does the PhD still represent a unique skill set that cannot be achieved outside of academia?

The simple answer is: no, there’s not some magical transformation that occurs in graduate school.  You can have similar formative experiences in industry and elsewhere.

But the simple answer doesn’t explain the listener’s experience at work.  Despite the fact that employees can learn on the job, there is a cognitive bias in the working world that equates a doctorate with almost mythic abilities.

Like all biases, PhD-reverence is a mental shortcut that can have some unintended consequences.

For example, a hiring manager might overlook an extremely talented candidate with a Bachelor’s and years of experience and award the job to someone with a PhD fresh out of school.  The first candidate may have more training and sharper abilities, but that takes precious time to assess.  A PhD looks impressive with one glance at a CV.

At the end of the day, PhD-bias is a palpable force in the workplace, even if your research field is irrelevant to the current position!

You can certainly advance without the degree, but it will take persistence, strong networking skills, and a willingness to advocate for yourself with your managers.  If you can impress enough of your supervisors and are willing to ask to move up, you can make progress.

But if you decide to go back to school, make sure you choose a program and a lab that will support your career goals.  Look for universities with a strong Technology Transfer Office, and find a PI that understands your desire to work in industry.  Not all of them do, and you’ll need their support to finish the degree and get back to work.

It’s the trail mix of beer

Postdocs are some of the most productive scientists on the planet, but you wouldn’t know it if you looked at a pay stub.  For years now, postdoc salaries have remained stagnant in the low $40,000s, causing many young scientists to find other careers in other industries.

But a recently announced bill from the Department of Labor could boost postdoc salary with the stroke of a pen.  Dubbed “FLSA” (Fair Labor Standards Act), employees earning less than the $47,476 per year would have to be paid overtime or have their hours cut back to 40 per week.

Last we checked, most postdocs fit that description!

Postdocs Put the ‘Labor’ in ‘Laboratory’

Before you get excited about earning time and a half on your 80 hour work week, please note that the most likely outcome is a salary increase.   Universities will not want to begin tracking time sheets for their postdoctoral trainees and your Western blot will not wait until morning, so overtime pay or work-hour-reductions are off the table.  That leaves one option: boost pay to $47,476 annually.

Some have speculated that postdocs won’t qualify for the new thresholds, as they are ‘trainees,’ and not full employees.  The Director of the NIH, Francis Collins, has come out publicly in support of pay raises and has already decided to make the FLSA pay scale standard for postdocs paid out of National Research Service Awards (NRSA).

It’s a small step, but one that we hope will signal change for postdocs around the country.

Better Than a Tyrannostallion

We’re celebrating more good news related to labor – a new baby for Daniel and his wife!

On tap is the Rye Pale Ale from Ponysaurus Brewing in Durham, NC.  Aside from a tasty beer and a nightmarish mascot, Ponysaurus boasts the most non-sensical tagline ever written: “Ponysaurus: The Beer Beer Would Drink If Beer Could Drink Beer.”

I’m sorry, what?

Postdocs are some of the most productive scientists on the planet, but you wouldn’t know it if you looked at a pay stub.  For years now, postdoc salaries have remained stagnant in the low $40,000s, causing many young scientists to find other careers in other industries.

But a recently announced bill from the Department of Labor could boost postdoc salary with the stroke of a pen.  Dubbed “FLSA” (Fair Labor Standards Act), employees earning less than the $47,476 per year would have to be paid overtime or have their hours cut back to 40 per week.

Last we checked, most postdocs fit that description!

Postdocs Put the ‘Labor’ in ‘Laboratory’

Before you get excited about earning time and a half on your 80 hour work week, please note that the most likely outcome is a salary increase.   Universities will not want to begin tracking time sheets for their postdoctoral trainees and your Western blot will not wait until morning, so overtime pay or work-hour-reductions are off the table.  That leaves one option: boost pay to $47,476 annually.

Some have speculated that postdocs won’t qualify for the new thresholds, as they are ‘trainees,’ and not full employees.  The Director of the NIH, Francis Collins, has come out publicly in support of pay raises and has already decided to make the FLSA pay scale standard for postdocs paid out of National Research Service Awards (NRSA).

It’s a small step, but one that we hope will signal change for postdocs around the country.

Better Than a Tyrannostallion

We’re celebrating more good news related to labor – a new baby for Daniel and his wife!

On tap is the Rye Pale Ale from Ponysaurus Brewing in Durham, NC.  Aside from a tasty beer and a nightmarish mascot, Ponysaurus boasts the most non-sensical tagline ever written: “Ponysaurus: The Beer Beer Would Drink If Beer Could Drink Beer.”

I’m sorry, what?

We know that stepping from academia to industry is met with scorn for the person ‘selling out’ and leaving the university, but there’s a subtler form of bias against those scientists who actually like to teach.

The moment you consider applying for a university teaching position, your advisors and peers will come out of the woodwork to tell you what a bad idea that is. It’s unstable, a waste of your abilities, and you’ll be bored in just four days!

And God forbid you mention a job that doesn’t offer tenure.

This week on the show, we talk with a professor who took that fateful teaching job, and lived to tell about it.  In fact, she’s happier than she’s ever been.

 Ignoring the Voices

This week, we follow up on last week’s interview with Dr. Shannon Jones, the Director of Biological Instruction at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

Though Dr. Jones was offered several positions on the tenure track at research universities, she knew her motivational profile and passions.  That included nurturing students on their own scientific paths through teaching and mentorship.

But turning down offers for a job with tenure was no easy decision.  In fact, her colleagues advised her to stick with academia, citing many reasons why a teaching position was a bad idea:

* Without tenure, there’s no job security.

* The pay is terrible.  You can’t make a living teaching!

* They’ll give all the good classes to tenured full professors – you’re going to be stuck teaching remedial biology to undergrads for the rest of your career.

* There’s no chance for advancement – you’ll do the same work the rest of your career.

* Applying for grants and doing bench research is what you’re trained for.  Teaching is a step down and a waste of your skills!

And on it goes.

But these are myths, biases, and simplifications that don’t hold up to scrutiny.

As you read this list of myths, check your own intuition and experience.  If you find yourself nodding along with the naysayers, tune in to this week’s episode to find out how Dr. Jones addressed these concerns and many more.

All Day is Not a “Session”

This week, we enjoy the All Day IPA Session Ale from Founders Brewing Company in Grand Rapids, MI.  

Curious about the notion of drinking all day, we look up the meaning of ‘session’ as it pertains to beer.  The etymology harkens back to a simpler time when employees were allowed to drink beer on their breaks.

And for the record, citing precedent does not make it okay for you to bring a six-pack to work tomorrow!

We know that stepping from academia to industry is met with scorn for the person ‘selling out’ and leaving the university, but there’s a subtler form of bias against those scientists who actually like to teach.

The moment you consider applying for a university teaching position, your advisors and peers will come out of the woodwork to tell you what a bad idea that is. It’s unstable, a waste of your abilities, and you’ll be bored in just four days!

And God forbid you mention a job that doesn’t offer tenure.

This week on the show, we talk with a professor who took that fateful teaching job, and lived to tell about it.  In fact, she’s happier than she’s ever been.

 Ignoring the Voices

This week, we follow up on last week’s interview with Dr. Shannon Jones, the Director of Biological Instruction at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

Though Dr. Jones was offered several positions on the tenure track at research universities, she knew her motivational profile and passions.  That included nurturing students on their own scientific paths through teaching and mentorship.

But turning down offers for a job with tenure was no easy decision.  In fact, her colleagues advised her to stick with academia, citing many reasons why a teaching position was a bad idea:

* Without tenure, there’s no job security.

* The pay is terrible.  You can’t make a living teaching!

* They’ll give all the good classes to tenured full professors – you’re going to be stuck teaching remedial biology to undergrads for the rest of your career.

* There’s no chance for advancement – you’ll do the same work the rest of your career.

* Applying for grants and doing bench research is what you’re trained for.  Teaching is a step down and a waste of your skills!

And on it goes.

But these are myths, biases, and simplifications that don’t hold up to scrutiny.

As you read this list of myths, check your own intuition and experience.  If you find yourself nodding along with the naysayers, tune in to this week’s episode to find out how Dr. Jones addressed these concerns and many more.

All Day is Not a “Session”

This week, we enjoy the All Day IPA Session Ale from Founders Brewing Company in Grand Rapids, MI.  

Curious about the notion of drinking all day, we look up the meaning of ‘session’ as it pertains to beer.  The etymology harkens back to a simpler time when employees were allowed to drink beer on their breaks.

And for the record, citing precedent does not make it okay for you to bring a six-pack to work tomorrow!

Every day in a research lab is spent forming hypotheses, designing experiments, and examining data.  So it might surprise you to know that the scientific method is only rarely applied in the classroom.

Wouldn’t it be transformative if the methods that professors use to teach science were tested and proven to be effective?

Well, you’re in luck – we’ve found one such scientist who has focused her career on improving science education at the university level.

The Leg Bone’s Connected to the Fumarate

This week on the show, we interview Dr. Shannon Jones, the Director of Biological Instruction at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

Dr. Jones’ sole focus is teaching and improving student outcomes as they train for careers in the biomedical sciences.  And as a scientist herself, she’s committed to improving the curriculum with evidence-based practices.

How is a day in her class different from other bio classrooms?

You may remember learning the Krebs Cycle “the old fashioned way.”  You memorized the names and structures of each chemical in the pathway and which enzymes and energy sources catalyzed the transitions. (The words pyruvate and Acetyl-CoA probably still give you nightmares.)

At the end of the section, you took a test and immediately forget everything you had learned in order to cram the photosynthetic pathway into the same spot in your brain.

Dr. Jones takes a different approach.

She knows that the web provides a breadth of literature and learning available at your fingertips, so she’s more interested in how her students understand and synthesize what they’ve learned.  She presents data: a particular substrate has built up to unusually high levels in the cell.  Can the students figure out what part of the pathway is broken down, and how it might have happened?

It’s a vastly different approach – asking students to solve a problem by learning the Krebs Cycle, rather than memorization for its own sake.

And at the end of the term, her students do measurably better at recalling what they’ve learned.

Tune into this episode for more insights into evidence-based learning practices, and how Dr. Jones can measure the success of her students.

Hot Cuppa

We take a break from ethanol this week (You’re welcome, livers!) to sample some tasty coffee.  Fact is, we had to record pretty early in the morning this week and we just weren’t up for the hard stuff.

Instead, we turn up our noses at what’s dripping out of the percolator and dive into our own quirky notions of the perfect cup of joe.  It’s science meets snobbery with a splash of half ‘n half.

Every day in a research lab is spent forming hypotheses, designing experiments, and examining data.  So it might surprise you to know that the scientific method is only rarely applied in the classroom.

Wouldn’t it be transformative if the methods that professors use to teach science were tested and proven to be effective?

Well, you’re in luck – we’ve found one such scientist who has focused her career on improving science education at the university level.

The Leg Bone’s Connected to the Fumarate

This week on the show, we interview Dr. Shannon Jones, the Director of Biological Instruction at the University of Richmond in Virginia.

Dr. Jones’ sole focus is teaching and improving student outcomes as they train for careers in the biomedical sciences.  And as a scientist herself, she’s committed to improving the curriculum with evidence-based practices.

How is a day in her class different from other bio classrooms?

You may remember learning the Krebs Cycle “the old fashioned way.”  You memorized the names and structures of each chemical in the pathway and which enzymes and energy sources catalyzed the transitions. (The words pyruvate and Acetyl-CoA probably still give you nightmares.)

At the end of the section, you took a test and immediately forget everything you had learned in order to cram the photosynthetic pathway into the same spot in your brain.

Dr. Jones takes a different approach.

She knows that the web provides a breadth of literature and learning available at your fingertips, so she’s more interested in how her students understand and synthesize what they’ve learned.  She presents data: a particular substrate has built up to unusually high levels in the cell.  Can the students figure out what part of the pathway is broken down, and how it might have happened?

It’s a vastly different approach – asking students to solve a problem by learning the Krebs Cycle, rather than memorization for its own sake.

And at the end of the term, her students do measurably better at recalling what they’ve learned.

Tune into this episode for more insights into evidence-based learning practices, and how Dr. Jones can measure the success of her students.

Hot Cuppa

We take a break from ethanol this week (You’re welcome, livers!) to sample some tasty coffee.  Fact is, we had to record pretty early in the morning this week and we just weren’t up for the hard stuff.

Instead, we turn up our noses at what’s dripping out of the percolator and dive into our own quirky notions of the perfect cup of joe.  It’s science meets snobbery with a splash of half ‘n half.