Grad Students Think Twice About Jobs in Academe

Parent Cafe
21

<p>Academia can be extremely family friendly once you’ve gotten tenure. It’s great work, with lots of autonomy and a lot of flexibility in how one allocates one’s time. If I need to take to break to take my daughter to the orthodontist to replace a broken wire (as I did earlier this week), I’m free to do that on my own initiative without signing out or getting anyone’s approval; I can just make up the time later, in the evening, over the weekend, or whenever I choose. I wouldn’t trade this life for anything, both because of the inherent satisfactions of the work (both teaching and research/writing), and because I can’t imagine a more family friendly work life. </p>

<p>But for reasons others have discussed, the tenure bar is getting higher all the time, and that increases the stress level on untenured tenure-track academics. Many feel they need to postpone a family until after tenure, and to work like maniacs to try to meet that bar. Many don’t make it and fall into a lower-wage category of contract instructors or part-time adjuncts (the latter often without even basic fringe benefits like a retirement plan and health insurance). Some become “academic gypsies,” moving from college to college in search of better work. Folks in these categories are paid to teach, not to do research which is what attracted many Ph.D.s to their disciplines in the first place. Seeing these prospects before them, a lot of people in Ph.D. programs are apparently saying, “No thanks.” </p>

<p>But hey, it’s a market. If too many newly minted Ph.D.s start turning down academia, colleges and universities will need to make adjustments. So far they haven’t had to because in most fields it’s a “buyers market” for young academic talent, with many people chasing a small number of tenure-track jobs. Maybe that will change. Stay tuned.</p>

22

<p>There are many different stories and many different approaches to career choice. I have a friend who left a prestigious private research university and took a position at a third tier state school to be near better fishing (he still does remarkable research), another who left a similar school to be in a large city with better restaurants. Different folks have different ambitions. I have been involved in university/college teaching and research, college administration, and the private sector (founded two firms based on my and others’ research). I find that all have great features and can be quite satisfying. If I were forced to choose, it would be tough, but given my experience, I would probably give up the lifestyle and money for the academy (research & teaching). I have encouraged S1 to look into this life, and to think how he can channel his entrepreneurial tendencies toward solving important scientific and social problems. In the end, I will support whatever he does.</p>

23

<p>For me, the chief benefit of a career at a research university has been the opportunity to pursue fundamental questions in my field. I’ve made a few discoveries that never made the news, but that have actually made me feel ecstatic, with the sense of understanding molecular interactions in a completely new way. It is always interesting, and sometimes inspiring, to work with students. Generally speaking, my colleagues are great people.</p>

<p>The salaries of faculty in the College of Business are <em>way</em> out of line with the salaries in most of the rest of the university, though. No one in my department makes $200K, let alone $300K. And then, salaries in science and engineering departments are considerably higher than salaries in the humanities.</p>

<p>I think the perception on the part of the women scientists that research universities are not family friendly is in fact accurate. Part of it is related to the timing of the tenure decision. A person will typically complete a Ph.D. in science at 26 or 27. Adding in two or three years of postdoctoral research experience (essentially required) means that the person is 28 to 30–and actually, often older–at the start of an assistant professorship. In most cases at our institution, the faculty member will be considered for tenure in the sixth year of the appointment. It seems to me that I’ve heard that the average age of those awarded their first NIH grants was 42 last year. There is a bit of a disconnect here, because no one in my university could get tenure without a grant (or grants). So perhaps the average age is substantially higher than the median? In any case, if a woman waits to have children until she has been awarded tenure, it pushes her into the category of “advanced maternal age,” according to the ob/gyns. </p>

<p>Some of the women I know have had children earlier, and sometimes this has worked out, in terms of the careers. Most people who really understand the responsibilities of child-rearing would not think that a one-year postponement of the tenure decision was anywhere near sufficient to level the playing field.</p>

<p>I agree with bclintonk, there’s lots of autonomy in an academic career. When my daughter was sick as a child, I could always schedule a pediatrician’s appointment that day, working around my teaching schedule. But I couldn’t imagine leaving at 3. Most of the seminars run from 4 to 5:30, faculty meetings from 4 to 6 or later, etc. I usually leave for dinner between 6 and 7, and then work in the evenings back in the lab or at home.</p>

<p>As far as flexibility goes, my father-in-law worked for Booz, Allen for a long time, and said that Booz, Allen did not care which 100 hours per week you worked. A lot of academic science operates on the same basis.</p>

24

<p>The gist of it I am getting is that a tenured position <em>is</em> in fact what I hope for – working on math research that interests me deeply, under a somewhat flexible setting, where it isn’t the given particular hours one works but THAT one does a bunch of work which is helpful. I am also gathering that similar remarks hold for the stages before academic tenure, except for the fact that pay is much lower, and pressure is higher to produce something worthy of advancement. </p>

<p>Anyone here a math professor and willing to share something about both a) how difficult it was to get to where you are [depending on what stage of the game you’re at], b) what the process was to get there, starting from when you finished your Ph.D.?</p>

25

<p>Another interesting point - how often do people entering top graduate programs in their fields, say top 10, actually obtain professorships where they would like to, i.e. somewhere they are quite satisfied?</p>

26

<p>mathboy98, for math, I can’t say. In physics, Physics Today reported a few years ago that there were academic openings available in research institutions in the US for roughly 10% of the postdocs at research institutions. Even if you assume that only 1/2 or 1/3 of the postdocs were looking for tenure-track positions in a given year, and if you correct for the foreign postdocs who are planning to return to their home countries, it still leaves quite a large number of physics postdocs who will need to find positions in industry, government, or completely different fields.</p>

27

<p>mathboy98, for math, I can’t say. In physics, Physics Today reported a few years ago that there were academic openings available in research institutions in the US for roughly 10% of the postdocs at research institutions. Even if you assume that only 1/2 or 1/3 of the postdocs were looking for tenure-track positions in a given year, and if you correct for the foreign postdocs who are planning to return to their home countries, it still leaves quite a large number of physics postdocs who will need to find positions in industry, government, or completely different fields.</p>

<p>I see, yeah so one really does have to be at the top of the field to have a decent chance. Hmmm. I’ll keep this in mind. The nice thing, though, is I think math majors can nicely transition to quite a few other things if they’re willing to consider less pure, abstract flavored math.</p>

28

<p>I do think the different viewpoints on here reflects different fields and it’s important to keep that in mind.
Some fields are harder to break into and require post-docs, others do not. Some fields hav emore jos than applicants and for the majority its the reverse (hint mathboy: I’ve seen successful math PhDs parlay into a career in finance where there are jobs :)). Some require grants, others do not. Some require several published books to get tenure, others require 20 empirical publications, and so on. It’s not one standard across the board (I currently sit on the promotion committee at the university level and see these vast differences).</p>

<p>But boy so much negativity on this thread. I have been hearing about the demise of tenure since I started in this business. I keep saying “show me the data”. How many schools can we count that abandoned tenure? Show me the data of tenure disappearing or changing the nature of job security. Or the actual absolute decline of tenure-track positions. </p>

<p>Speaking of data, and I’ll try to find it to post a link here, but the last study I looked at showed that the vast majority of those coming up for tenure receive it, either at their first institution or second. </p>

<p>I agree the bar keeps going up, but that is true for the corporate world as well (not to mention our own children’s world where the standards just to get into college are so different than when we were growing up). things worth pursuing, with the greatest rewards, are tons of work and not without tremendous risk. I think becoming a partner in a law firm, a cardiac surgeon, a professional musician or a successful entrepreneur is a huge amount of work with huge odds against you too. I don’t think that is a good reason to be discouraged from trying to make a go from one’s passion. </p>

<p>But the best part of this career is that it’s outcome oriented, you get rewarded for what you produce. As for leaving at 3, or other perks: only realistic if at all post-tenure and in the right culture. I simply was not available for meetings after a certain time and everyone knew that. As a mom, you do what you have to do. It helps to chair the meetings. And I mean really, what would happen to you if you aren’t in after 3 (post-tenure)? You publish, get great teacher ratings, serve your community on committees and being a good citizen in all kinds of ways…people greatly underestimate their ability to say no. Interestingly, my male tenured colleagues complain to their wives they can’t possibly do child pick up or doc appts, insisting they must be constantly in the office, but I don’t see them producing more…and they do make time I can’t afford to schmooze, take lunch away from their desk…but I digress…) </p>

<p>Now I did work the evenings and weekends, and still do, sometimes working from my car in a parking lot while I await for a practice to end, at 1am in my home office, or 5am if I can’t sleep. No one says it’s LIGHT hours, just flexible hours. When my first baby was young (and I was too), I had to have full-time child care but chose to live across the street from my office. I would get home in late afternoon, and change into mom clothes, be at home until baby was sleep for the night, and get dressed again into a suit to teach an evening MBA class. So it goes. </p>

<p>People wanting professions and to be involved parents have hard choices to make, no matter what career. It’s never easy. Movement upward is always during the childbearing years. But flexible hours is key if it was ever going to work.</p>

29

<p>“But boy so much negativity on this thread. I have been hearing about the demise of tenure since I started in this business. I keep saying “show me the data”. How many schools can we count that abandoned tenure? Show me the data of tenure disappearing or changing the nature of job security. Or the actual absolute decline of tenure-track positions.” </p>

<p>Actually Starbright you could achieve that data by looking at the increased number of adjuncts. Schools don’t have to abandon tenure all they need to do is make it irrelevant by washing that tradition over with adjuncts. Adjuncts (god bless them because academe won’t) are cheap, qualified and quite desperate. </p>

<p>And academe is not a bad career but for the generation which recently entered into academe there have been and will be some major changes. In my case I’ve been at it for a while, but even so at times I feel like beating some of my older colleagues with their own pointers or dry erase markers. Some just cannot conceive that the academic bliss days of the 60’s-80’s era are faded away and steadfastly refuse to comprehend what was normal for them will be almost paranormal for their successors.</p>

<p>And of course the definition of how good or bad it all is tends to be very contingent on the field…in some fields the bars gone up so high that looking for UFO’s or the Ghost of Anne Boleyn could be more probable or at least more productive.</p>

30

<p>Atana, increase in adjuncts might just reflect the demands for smaller classes in the race for rankings,and so have to increase faculty accordingly (within budgets). It could reflect creative ways to attract researchers (with small research loads but needing more faculty to cover those classes). Or multiple other explanations (besides the demise of the tenure-track). And do we know adjuncts have increased?</p>

<p>I completely concur we may be talking apples and oranges, as our visions vary by the reality of our disciplines. But I honestly have not seen the negative changes to which you refer.</p>

31

<p>As a female tenured professor who had two children very early in her career (pre-tenure), I can say that in biomedical sciences, academia is the only career that I could volunteer in my childrens’ classes each day till 10AM and then return to lab! Industry is not so flexible (nor any other field). </p>

<p>Let’s be frank. Academics may (and do!) complain, but no other field allows so much time flexibility each day of the week. </p>

<p>That said
Tenured professors have lifelong job security. It should be difficult to acquire this guaranteed earning and should only be awarded to the few who demonstrate the potential to stay active for the subsequent 30 years! It is not something that should be expected simply for “being smart”!</p>

<p>And for clarity, I am not of the 60’s-80’s era referred to by other posters.</p>

32

<p>Yargh haha, I wish a math professor or postdoc or whatever came and posted here. </p>

<p>But reading all this helps a ton. Though I’m young…who knows how things will be by the time I’m hunting for positions.</p>

33

<p>Another academic who found it to be a very family friendly career. The pre-tenure period can be pressure-filled, but even then, you have great freedom to allocate your own time. I got to spend a lot of time with my D when she was younger, and then went back to the office to do research after she went to bed. As others have said, you get to think and write about things you love, work with bright, motivated young people, have job security, perqs like sabbaticals, paid travel, (not to mention what amounts to a free membership in a fancy health club).</p>

<p>I’m in the humanities, and the downside is that there are routinely 1-200 applicants for every position in many fields.</p>

34

<p>

[Forum</a> on Part-time and Adjunct Faculty](<a href=“http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/98mtg/abstracts/FacForum.html]Forum”>http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/98mtg/abstracts/FacForum.html)</p>

<p>Who Killed Homer? is an eye-opener about the sad and drastic decline of Classics in academia. Emphasis mine.

</p>

35

<p>mathboy98- In the (top 10) math department where I’m a grad student about half of the graduating Ph.D students end up in tenure-track jobs at research universities ~5 years after their Ph.D’s. Most of the rest are split between “teaching-intensive colleges/universities” and finance-sector jobs unrelated to theit Ph.D research- many of these choose that route because during grad school they either found out they enjoy teaching more than research or simply that pure math isn’t as exciting once they’ve been doing it for a decade. Since most math Ph.D’s who aren’t interested in research careers don’t go the postdoc route, there is no great disparity between the number of postdocs and tenure-track positions and research universities that exists in eg physics or biology. (Part of this is because professors in the lab sciences depend on a supply of postdocs to carry out their experiments, while math doesn’t have experiments…)</p>

36

<p>"Atana, increase in adjuncts might just reflect the demands for smaller classes in the race for rankings,and so have to increase faculty accordingly (within budgets). It could reflect creative ways to attract researchers (with small research loads but needing more faculty to cover those classes). Or multiple other explanations (besides the demise of the tenure-track). And do we know adjuncts have increased?</p>

<p>I completely concur we may be talking apples and oranges, as our visions vary by the reality of our disciplines. But I honestly have not seen the negative changes to which you refer"</p>

<p>Starbright, Outside of research institutions the use of adjuncts has markedly increased. Simply because they are a cheap resource and a very easily exploited resource. And in certain fields there is little else meaningful that they can do with their terminal degrees but academe. However as you noted colleges may cover classes with unexpected high enrollments or the other exceptional situations by using adjuncts… </p>

<p>But in general adjuncts are in the position they’re in because of budget and other constraints on academe. Tracking the increased number of adjuncts can be done locally via institutional comparisons-for example here in Colorado they are a substantial proportion of teaching faculty-especially at the gateway schools. Or it can be tracked by indirect means by watching such as the “Chronicle” job postings or such as “Adjunct Nation”. </p>

<p>How it will end tenure is that when those of us who have secure positions holding tenure and etc retire or leave via other means-increasingly we will not be replaced by people who will get like status. Systemically colleges will not have to do so, they’ve got a fairly substantial pool of educated and desperate people who will serve for much less cost. These potential profs/instructors will have no choice in the matter. And because of lessened levels of state and federal direct support academe increasingly will have no choice but to take this route. </p>

<p>In some fields as Archeologist noted (and humanities are notorious for for being leaders in this phenomenon) there are often 200+ applicants for each FT posting. It’s wonderful for those who win the ribbon, but that leaves some 100+ or so quite qualified people who have to make any compromise necessary to make ends meet. No doubt you’ve served on, or heard of search committees which have observed these conditions.</p>

37

<p>“Tenured professors have lifelong job security. It should be difficult to acquire this guaranteed earning and should only be awarded to the few who demonstrate the potential to stay active for the subsequent 30 years! It is not something that should be expected simply for “being smart”!” </p>

<p>Quite true ParAlum. The dilemma is the ability to support such a system has been substantially undermined by current higher education funding structures. </p>

<p>The other dilemma is that sometimes those who do obtain tenure manage to do a fine job undermining the credibility of the tenure system. I’ve personally known a few shining stars who once having obtained tenure were seen less on campus than Bigfoot, or the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall. And unfortunately their behavior can cause tenure to have the less public credibility than wandering Sasquatches and deceased and transparent females wafting about on staircases.</p>

38

<p>“In the (top 10) math department where I’m a grad student about half of the graduating Ph.D students end up in tenure-track jobs at research universities ~5 years after their Ph.D’s.”</p>

<p>Woohoo =] Well, I mean, assuming I can make it to such a program, which of course would be totally awesome. I was just kinda wondering…can someone make it to being a grad student at Columbia, Berkeley, MIT, wherever, and then end up finding there’s a very bad chance STILL of getting tenured somewhere. If there are good prospects, then I’m glad.</p>

<p>See, if I naturally decide I don’t want to do research, that’s great and fine. I’ll be happy to teach somewhere…but I don’t want to be in the position where I adore research, actually do some good work, go to a nice grad school, and then still have major issues getting anywhere. </p>

<p>“Part of this is because professors in the lab sciences depend on a supply of postdocs to carry out their experiments, while math doesn’t have experiments…)”</p>

<p>This is an interesting point. Where do you go to school by the way happyentropy? I’m interested in hearing about programs too. I’ve done a lot of on the surface looking. BTW yes I’m only a second year, but still…I have a friend who’s a senior, and his enthusiasm for grad school infected me.</p>

39

<p>I’m a grad student at U. Chicago, and was an undergrad at Caltech.</p>

40

<p>Very cool! I’ll surely be applying to Chicago, wonderful department they have. </p>

<p>I am wondering, what do people like you who end up at such top schools think got you in? I know one guy from my school (Berkeley) last year who was accepted to MIT, Princeton, UChicago, Berkeley itself among other schools, and he had basically some great higher level courses towards the latter part of his career, a particularly powerful faculty recommendation, and I think he did an REU and a senior thesis. What, though, pushes you over into a top school like Chicago?</p>