The debate over the tenure process that Rob kicked up at Galactic Interactions continues with Chad worrying about senior academic complacence and the Incoherent Ponderer pondering some more
the latter makes a good point - the big hurdle is moving from postdoc to tenure track, that is anecdotally where most of the involuntary attrition takes place (a lot of people who stop after PhD seem to do it by choice, they've had a taste and decided to do something else, thank you).
Once on the tenure track, the odds are better; the real issue seems to be the process, not the outcome.
It is a brutal process, and it can be counterproductive and contradictory.
Why, in fact, do senior faculty seem to think that junior faculty will work harder if pushed - it seems almost like hazing rather than a rational process at times.
Yet, I see my senior colleagues protest that it really is not that bad or irrational, and rushing to assure commenters who sound despondent, and I find myself nodding in agreement. It is not that bad, in aggregate.
The it struck me, the tenured faculty are, just a tiny bit, like Pentagon staff generals - we know the process is flawed and that people are needlessly sacrificed, their working lives thrown away sometimes just in order to follow an arbitary process; yet we must say all is well, because the whole system relies on enthusiastic fresh blood coming in at the bottom ranks not just at a rate fast enough to fill the top ranks, but by design, fast enough for footsoldiers who we know will never make it.
We even run the same "up or out" system, where if after a fixed period you are either promoted or pushed out (although you can always come back in as a contractor, on better pay and terms, but lower stature...).
We have to be optimistic because the only hope of the system working is if it is encouraged to do so, it relies on those in charge consistently advocating for the status quo in spite of any doubt.
Aargh.
Ok, I'm stretching the analogy, but there is a grain of truth there. There are flaws in the system, the odds of getting tenure, much less tenure at a research university, are poor, and as much as we strive for meritocracy, being political enough or having the right connections at the right time can also be crucial.
But, what we can not afford is for the supply to cut off, we need students, and postdocs, and enthusiastic naive young assistant professors of high quality in a steady stream. Systemically we prefer an oversupply so we can pick and choose capriciously who can join the oligarchy.
The system relies on this and we have to reassure the students who worry that there is a chance, there is always a chance, and anyway, you don't do it for tenure, you do it for the joy of being part of the process of discover and research, knowing that mostly those who crash out land softly, eventually.
And it is true. Which is both reassuring and disturbing.
Tenure does work, in aggregate, and is "better than all the other systems". For all its flaws.
And the people who participate really do it because they chose to, because they are doing what they want. The frustration and anger comes when you are no longer allowed to work too many hours for too little pay at something almost no one understand or appreciates, and you actually might have to go and do something high paid and prestigious with regular hours and social respect.
And people think scientists are weird.
Bottom line: do a PhD if you think it is interesting and if you enjoy the process of research.
If you want money, stop at an MSc (you can come back for a quickie PhD later if you need it for further promotion, if you have the aptitude).
If you liked the PhD, do a postdoc. Keep an eye on the prize of tenure, but realize the odds are uncertain. If you get a tenure track position, realize there are new hurdles that are different; teaching takes time, as do committee duties, and grantmanship is an art that needs practise, persistence and compromise.
Then, if and when you get tenure - try to remember what it was like, while realising that it is different for everyone else.
And empathise with the poor sophomores in the US who are still getting busted for drinking bud.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
analogy with Pentagon generals is right on the money.
I have expressed plenty of complaints about the current system that trains about 20 times the number of people required for conducting research in physical sciences, without much regard for what happens to the overflow. On the other hand it's not clear what could be a practical solution to overflow problem. Clearly, unilaterally reducing number of graduate students in particular department will hurt that department (and benefit other departments that will take the extra students and supplement their cheap labor). Even if there was some global reduction, one would have to go down to a single grad student per lifetime of professorship to give everyone a shot at academic job market in steady state - something that will never happen.
Opening more research-only positions, for example in government and industrial labs can only help to some degree, once again, because it's difficult to imagine increasing those ranks to match academic positions 20-fold, especially at a time when industry is cutting down on fundamental research. But I hear that other countries - for example Germany - are relying on research institutes like Max Planck and industry a lot more. Maybe globalization will help?
I am currently looking to hire a postdoc, and I am thinking a lot more about my own responsibility to whoever this person turns out to be - chances are, the postdoc will have some ideas about staying in academia, but these opportunities are very limited. On one hand, the postdoc and I have common goals - I want to see good science done, and the postdoc desperately NEEDS to get good science done in order to stand a chance at the market. One area where advisor and postdoc may differ is timing - advisor can benefit from longer-term projects, and not care much if something gets published two years from now, or four years from now - even though obviously the earlier the better, as delays can get tricky sometimes. But for postdoc timing is crucial.
Of course, I will be doing everything in my power to help postdocs on the job market, even though my power is very limited. Even then I feel like I am exploiting the situation - part of the reason why postdocs work so super-hard is because of this pressure-cooker of going on the job market in just a few years.
Bottom line - no matter how much I don't like the situation, there is very little I can do except be as honest as I can about my own experience and thoughts on the subject, and at the same time be as helpful as I can in helping my own students and postdocs. But since it's clearly a zero-sum game, this is a bit like saving yourself and your family from drowning at Titanic, and fully realizing that others must perish in their place.
Now, tenure as such is I think largely a US thing, but analogous career issues exists everywhere. I think the system does not need to be changes as much as augmented. With an "up or out" system, it's not the "up" that's the problem; it's the "out". There is no way for people to effectively stay at a level they can work in and continue to contribute. A company depending on having talented engineers will not kick them out after ten years if they aren't manager material; they'll have a technical career track open instead.
And this is an issue not only for average people like myself; too often a brilliant researcher will find themselves spending most of their time being a mediocre administrator or uninspiring teacher instead of actually doing what they are good at and appreciated for.