Postdoc blues: how do you know when it is time to give up?

This is a very important contribution and thank you to the needlessly anonymous author. Everyone knows that the vast majority of good postdocs cannot be provided with the resources to do well in science. What is kept more secret is how many of those few who are actually invited onto the next step, face a looming slavery and are subject to perverse incentives and stresses that impede creative thinking, long-term projects, but also due care and attention to experiments and teaching, to their own students and postdocs, the community etc. The solution lies in breaking up the culture where only the highly-successful in terms of publishing expensive research should survive and be allowed to compete for resources. Instead, resources need to be delivered in more rational ways, for example to institutions, who can then take a fairer view on how to distribute them, supporting smaller groups and fostering their independence and possibility to collaborate - if they wish to - on mutually beneficial terms. One problem is that the current system has corrupted institutional management (good practices within instutions are a prerequisite for my suggestion above to work) and as the older guard retires, I see less willingness to engage and less understanding of the problem of what is required for science to flourish at the top. The bottom, on the other hand, is inexperienced, divided, dependent, fearful, but above all, too busy to consider the situation. Those of us concerned (commendable initiatives have been voiced in many venues) should move the debate forward.

I do agree with some of the author's view, in particular the bit about mentors having to be more honest about career opportunities (but that would not be in their own interest ....). I would, however, say that by the time a student has completed his/her Doctoral studies the whole picture of academia should be pretty clear to them. Everybody with a PhD has the ability to understand the most recent statistics about academic careers i.e. only a few %, much less than 10%, of those starting a PhD end up in a Uni/research job. If you decide to gamble on that, well, be prepared for a loss as it is more likely than a win! I can't avoid moving some criticism to the author's attitude towards employment, within or outside academia. The whole article sounds much like the attitude I see every day in academia: quite simply, most researchers are either not being pro-active about their own jobs/careers/life, or not willing to do anything but being an academic. I do have a permanent academic position in a top University. I landed this job about 10 years after my PhD and after 4 years of probation. Since my PhD graduation, I haven't had even one day as a postdoc. I didn't have, to say the least, the best of PhD supervisors, and I was definitely not a "rising star" (I truly dislike this expression). In fact most people thought I should do something else as I was not material for academia! Being a realistic individual with a good grip on real life, I was well aware that my chances of getting a postdoc, let alone becoming a permanent faculty, were very slim. And this was despite the fact that it was definitely not my fault that my PhD turned out to be sub-standard; I worked very hard at it (exactly like 99% of people undertaking a PhD, we all work hard not just the rising stars!) but I lacked guidance and advice. So I decided to work as researcher outside academia and continued publishing. By doing so, I built additional skills that most of my academic peers cannot even dream of. Indeed, I would say that I am grossly overqualified for my current position (or largely underpaid depending on how you want to look at it). At one stage academia came back looking for me as I could offer something that the "rising stars" they had nurtured could not offer. Now I am an academic by choice but with an option to quit and do something else if I don't like what I see. PhD/Postdocs have skills that most other people don't have. They should stop thinking that if they can't have the exact job they want then it's unfair. And if they like flexibility, they should start thinking about self-employment. It is possible! My wife, also a PhD, this year decided to quit academia because there were no chances she could get a permanent position anywhere, and started her own company. 10 months later with an initial investment of about 2000 euro she is already making a decent living out of it, comparable to her former postdoc wages.

The main issues is that graduate and Pdoc mentors train scientists as they were trained. The world today does not need clones. It wants an edge. Scientists have to be writers, rhetoricians, trained reviewers. A postdoc needs to show a hiring university that they can do exactly what the job entails, by already having it done. Get a grant, publish, show leadership, innovation, and do outreach. That is what you will be measured by in the university. Show you already can do it. It would take me two hands to count the "dead-end permadocs" that found a job AFTER we talked about the interview, re-worked the job talk and changed the interview philosophy. Good scientists are dying on the vine because their skills are not translating to the real demands. It is a communications and training exercise, not a scientific one, that separates the candidate from the position. And "Contributor" needs to get this message. Publishing career guidance in a forum like this could be the difference that makes this pd stand out from the others that choose to never flex popular-press writing muscles. Today's students/pds need to take every step to develop a brand, participate in wider science, and take any opportunity to provide evidence that they can work above and beyond the basic call of science duty.

I am one of a group of researchers and former researchers at the University of Manchester who have organised a one day event on 4th November, Rethinking UK Research Funding (https://rethinkingukresearch.wordpress.com/), prompted in large part by the issues raised in this excellent piece. We worry about the effects short term funding and excessive competition is having on the quality of science and the quality of our lives. Like 'Contributor' we love our work. Similarly, we recognise that the odds of a successful academic career are stacked against us. We also worry that those of us who do stay in academia will be subject to the 'perverse incentives and stresses' mentioned by Fanis in their comment above. Beyond our own ambitions and disappointments, we are concerned about the effects of current structures on the quality of the research conducted in universities (see The Nuffield Council for Bioethics report, The Culture of Scientific Research in the UK). Who does the current system benefit? Certainly not research staff, probably not funders either - given the sorry situation where many results in some scientific disciplines are not reproducible. We believe we need to talk about this and that researchers need to find the time to make their voices heard in the essential debate about how to move on from the inherent and growing difficulties associated with the short term culture of academic research.

I'm always amazed when I hear about people doing self-funded PhDs (bad, bad idea). But really, do people really need telling that doing a self-funded postdoc is not a great career move? The fact that working in academia is your top choice can't be the be all and end all. Being a premiership footballer is a lot of people's top choice too. I also don't think this is a question that no one dare voice. When I was in grad school it was voiced constantly! Good luck to the poster, luckily I am sure that you do have a great CV which will stand you in good stead for a transfer to non-academic jobs. Doing so won't be as bad as you think.

Posted on behalf of the article's author: "Thanks everyone for the insightful comments. I was pleasantly surprised by the interest for my piece that I decided to write anonymously because, unfortunately, the current academic environment still does not praise you when you are openly doubtful about your chances, even when justified. Here, I would like to respond to some of the comments above: (1) I definitely agree that more money should be committed to institutions directly instead of giving it directly to the skillful lucky ones that have the CV to compete for the increasingly small amount of (governmental) research money. With this money, more senior researcher and staff positions could be created that could be taken by the postdocs that are now missing the boat towards a (tenure track) professorship. Additionally, it will make science a more tranquil place where people are inspired more by understanding the world instead of trying to secure themselves a future. (2) I also agree that postdocs should know that this is the current situation, understand their chances within and outside academia, and prepare for it adequately. Unfortunately, this is not always easy to predict. The main problem lies, as described towards the end of the piece, in mentors that keep reinforcing that if you just persevere you will survive in academia – which is still the main goal for many postdocs. I think they do this for two reasons: to be nice - and, hopefully, honest - to their mentees, and to save their own face. No professor wants their students to leave academia because it makes them look bad as a mentor. This is where we can and should change. Mentors should see that having more than 10% of your students land a job in science already shows good mentoring skills. Additionally, the ones that do decide to leave do not make you look bad as a mentor but show that you prepare your students for a realistic future. Additionally, “leaving” academia does not always mean - as many people appear to think - that you can never return, something that was nicely raised by one of the commentators. (3) And finally, yes I got the message that transferable skills, such as popular writing, are useful outside of academia. I would definitely suggest young scientists explore popular writing (amongst other things), think about alternative careers, and discuss them with peers. This will hopefully help to increase the dialogue about these issues, something that is already happening more and more at Stanford. I know this made me more aware and less anxious of my future, whether this is in academia or not!"

Work on your own interests or those from someone else? Having finished a PhD you should have demonstrated ability and independence. Hopefully, creativity. But to live you (usually) need to earn money, so you have to take a job. If it is an academic job, you can spend part of your time working on your own ideas (or should I say 'research'?), but in industry that is often also possible. If you do not want to work for others, start your own business. Living is a road of discovery, a continuous development of oneself, and I believe that anything you do you can be a part of that road. Just be sure that you know what you want and what is possible, then prioritize. Move on. Personally, I decided to move back to work for the university after 18 years, doing research, because that was the best fit for me at the time. It paid a lot less than industry, but had other aspects that fitted better to me. You have made the choice to continue in academia without pay, and now seem to have second thoughts. I think you need to consider your options and decide one way or the other to make it work.

The main trap I see both PhDs and postdocs fall into is that their immediate surroundings define the full range of possibilities for their career. The competition at Stanford and other R1 institutions is intense, and jobs at R1s are very competitive. But that doesn't mean that completely satisfying jobs aren't out there at other colleges and universities. And frankly, some of those opportunities may possess a better work/life balance.

Thrre important questions: 1) Are you enjoying your work? 2) Are you getting anywhere scientifically / building a portfolio? 3) Do you have reasonable prospects of continuing to be paid? If the answer to any of these is "no" - time to consider an alternative. I'm hopelessly biased; I still have the first job I applied for, back in 1980 - but I have trained 20+ PhDs and employed 10+ postdocs, and seen them go on to a variety of careers in academia and industry. The industry ones don't seem to look back; the academic ones are always searching for another path...until they get tenure, at which point they relax. I also know folk who have come back from industry to academia, after making a fistful of money - so dreams of academic jobs are never completely lost!

"But this only reinforces my conviction that I like being a scientist and I have the skills to be one." I assume you realize that in a permanent position (i.e. higher op the steep slope of the pyramid) you will have a different kin of schedule than you have now? Being a university lecturer in the UK for example (I was one) comes with quite some admin. So the "creativity, variety and flexibility" you might be experiencing as a post-doc with your own grant cannot really be extrapolated to the lecturer/professor level. Looking back on my own career, I mostly enjoyed my PhD and post-doc phase. After our department was made redundant (me and some other lecturers and a professor had to go) I decided it was a good opportunity to leave academia.

I hear your voice, seems to me you need some additional mentors from the 'real world'.. a problem when your life has been in academia.. with no life experience. Bon chance