Good read. "One who got away" is a nice subtitle ... it exemplifies the strange relationships we have in academia.
The examples given highlight the three sucky things about academic jobs: (i) less money than top-tier alternatives, (ii) insane competition at the start of your career, and (iii) difficulty maintaining work-life balance if you want to be successful.
I had heard about (i) before I started my PhD. That didn't seem like a big deal since grad school was mostly paid for. I'd get annoyed when people assumed being a scientist meant that you'd never get rich. (ii) was a surprise at graduation time (around 2007). At that time, it was said to be the economy's fault. Almost a decade later, it is clear that there were structural changes going on in my field. If you were in CS, it was far easier to get a professor job during the first dot-com gold rush since CS enrollments were increasing like there was no tomorrow. Regarding (iii), I think this happens in every field. It matters who your spouse is and how supportive they are. Sometimes you learn to throw in the towel and get a good night's sleep. You also need to learn to be efficient. I admit I was not the most efficient graduate student. After working at industry research labs for many years, I am amazed by how much I've changed. I still spend too much time on irrelevant things like writing this comment or reading the article but hey .. no one's perfect.
Regarding the fields picked by the first two examples, I want to bang my head against a wall for my lack of timing. I missed the dot-com days and the app-rush. Also, before 2007, it was obvious that a finance job paid very well - it was hard work but so is everything worth doing. Today, it isn't clear if there are any paths to surefire financial success. In some places I've lived in (outside the US), it seems one of the highest compensating careers was flipping condos. The lesson I learn is to be constantly vigilant of potential opportunities and to strike as soon as possible.
The examples given highlight the three sucky things about academic jobs: (i) less money than top-tier alternatives, (ii) insane competition at the start of your career, and (iii) difficulty maintaining work-life balance if you want to be successful.
ii and iii are the big issues for me (and obviously interwoven.) While it's not an original observation, one aspect of ii) that is especially bad is that most people probably have a distorted perspective on how good they are when they are starting out. The pool you will actually be competing with is probably much stronger than you realized.
In discussing some of these issues with a friend of mine, he said that he thought a good solution would be to substantially cut graduate enrollment and fill the labor gap with an increase in staff scientist positions. I think there's a lot to recommend that, but I can't say I see it realistically happening.
It is impossible for Universities to cut down graduate enrollment.
Professor productivity is defined primarily in terms of two measures: how many papers you authored (notice I avoided using the word wrote) and how many advanced degree students you graduate. Having a big pipeline of graduate students to help you achieve both goals is fundamental for success.
Also, Professors are tasked with multiple responsibilities that add little, if anything, to their perceived productivity as measured by the University. The most time consuming of those is usually lecturing undergraduate classes. Having an even bigger pool of graduate students where to offload time consuming activities associated with the class (primarily T.A.s and L.A.s but also people never met by the class doing support work like slide preparation, library searches, capture of results in brain-dead software platforms purchased by Uni's managers not doing any teaching themselves, etc) will allow you to concentrate in your research and do things that really matter (a.k.a. athoring papers and advising future PhDs).
Consider that the most important facet of your early career is getting published, which depends on the peer review process. You may have heard recently of a number of things getting published in major journals that didn't pass a sniff test---peer reviews are usually only single-blind; the reviewers know who and where the authors are, but not vice-versa. And who the authors advisers are, and so on.
(Once upon a time a grad student was given the task of reviewing a paper submitted by a senior, important researcher at another institution. The paper was completely unreadable---it had apparently never been seen by an English speaker, and the researcher was well known for writing obtusely. The student told his advisor, "I have no idea if this is any good or not. I'd like to reject it." The answer, of course, was, "Oh, no, we can't do that. Ask the best questions you can and send it back for another round. Maybe it'll get better.")
Don't forget, academic jobs are driven by tenure, and the club thereof. Do not under any circumstances piss off the faculty you work with. They will hold it against you.
And then there was the case of a senior, famous researcher who left to start a company; when the company wrapped up, he came back to professor-hood and became the department chairman, because (a) he wanted to raise the visibility of the department, and (b) no one wants to be chairman. For (a), he got the faculty to agree to create a new external liaison position which was half-time PR and half-time tenured faculty. Then he hired his student and friend from his company into the position, said student having previously been so successful at teaching that after one class he was never asked to teach again.
Oh, and before you say, "the politics are bad everywhere," consider that academic jobs are based on tenure. I've worked in industry most of my career, and when things get bad I pack up my camels and move on. You don't have that option in the five years before you get tenure---it's a one-strike-and-you're-out game.
I have seen both academics, small and large corporations. I think startups are the worst, but other than that, the rest is pretty much the same. Of course if you are only in one or the other, it may seem that your particular situation is the worst...
In many fields, spend years in a postdoc for a chance at a tenure-track job?
Not smart.
The image that the smartest, most promising ones stay in is just false. Most of the cut-offs in academia are crabshoots. Smart people realize that. The intense competition makes for horrific working conditions, at least until tenure. Smart people realize that as well. Some of the competition is based on ability, but a lot is based on politics. Pick a 'hot' topic. Focus on one field, don't do anything interdisciplinary. Make friends with the people who will write letters. Play department politics. Teach just barely well enough -- to leave enough free time for research. Play the grants game. Etc. None of that is fun.
So smart people go elsewhere.
One of the first things I learned after getting my Ph.D was to go where you were in demand. I switched from my most desirable field to my second (which was more in-demand, and had a younger, more startup culture), and immediately, the amount of respect, independence, flexibility, and just about everything else went up. Difference was like night-and-day.
Whenever people complain about society lacking scientists or scientific progress, I think, "Have you tried paying us money and giving us job security?"
When one thinks about the big picture, it gets ridiculous. I read a stat about how each of the major league sports in the US has more money spent in it by consumers than the research funding for all forms of cancer combined. In an age where there is massive productivity in production, society should be funding the heck out of research. We could probably knock out a major disease every two years!
A major issue with paying more is the scientists themselves. We tend to be a self-righteous group who insist our vow of poverty actually improves our work. And that by increasing our pay you'll tempt us into distraction. It's a horrible loop. We'll gladly fork over half a million for a new scope, but balk at paying the person to use it an extra $1,000 a year.
I like those stories about people doing on thing and then, after years, they start something different.
Seems like those kind of lifes aren't simply possible in Germany, where I come frome. Studying Chemistry and then going to a bank and tell then you wanna be a investment banker.
I already have a struggle with going from software engineering to usability engineering.
I have 4 close German friends, 1 MS Math, 2 PhD Math, 1 PhD Physics who all completed their terminal degree at the same university as me.
3 of them decided to go back to Germany mainly for the vacation culture. All big travelers with no interest in the US work environment. The 4th integrated into American culture more but is also the biggest traveler. While he wants to go back to Germany, he is currently working in the US because he says he still doesn't know what he wants to do and he doesn't think he could get away with that lack of direction anywhere else but the US.
For completeness, hes one of the phd maths and does research for an acturial software company. But he will be switching to something else soon.
You may like that the physics guy was doing post doc in the US and then decided to bail and joined a telecom consulting company in Germany. That's not as unrelated as chem to finance but for him it was a huge switch. The company was just willing to take on a long ramp-up time and teach him.
It's tough, I imagine. I love Germany but I was shocked to learn how important the Abitur is, and my friends there seem to have had their lives largely determined by the course they took as 16 year olds. Surely there must be some flexibility?
As someone who just left academia for industry a big factor in my decision is that I'll actually get to do more of the fun parts of research in industry. Ie develop a system, test it in real world situations and then see it pushed into actual use within the span of a few months and be part of the group that benefits materially from it.
By comparison the cycle in academia would be something like come up with an idea, submit grants wait months to hear back while working on other projects, do the work, write it up and submit it somewhere then wait months to hear back again and hope someone reads it and finds it useful.
I think this also points at part of the solution: less of a wall between academia and industry and allow people to move more freely between the two. Machine Learning and data analysis is leading the way here with great publications coming out of industry and professors holding positions at companies etc.
It's just what happens in the natural progression of life.
You might have started with one field in mind, but life happens.
At times decisions are also influenced by sad fact that your field is just too stagnated, or plain toxic, as is the case with medicine.
This makes sense to me. I did my undergrad work in biochem, and got my masters in computer science. My favorite thing about chemistry was figuring out organic synthesis steps on paper. I later realized that writing code to manipulate systems and data allowed me to scratch this same itch.
There are a few sub-issues here, which the article touches on briefly.
First, the pay and benefits are awful. This could be fixed with a cultural attitude shift which favors scientific progress enough to actually incentivize people to do it. The entire "STEM! STEM! STEM!" craze has not been accompanied by increased wages, so it rings cynically hollow.
Second, the work-life balance is poor, especially for PhD students and post docs. This could be fixed by reducing expectations and shifting to less of a "publish or perish" mindset when it comes to funding research. Working too many hours is frequently lamented/glorified/humblebragged about. A lot of these people don't have a life outside of the laboratory, and it's depressing to think about them because they choose it.
Third, the political games are fierce, relentless, and necessary in order to move upward. In academic biology, sideways moves aren't really a thing-- you either move upward (which really only happens a couple of times in most careers), or tread water wherever you are. The politics of funding and who to collaborate with are part of the game, and many people get fed up with it very quickly. People are extremely territorial about any kind of resources they have, even if the resources are freely replenishable or effectively infinite. Because so much time must be spent playing politics, leadership figures are frequently uninvolved/unreachable while occupied with political matters such as securing funding, collaborations, or new personnel.
Fourth, I have observed many instances of a poor work environment. There is always far more criticism than praise in the sciences, and it wears people down. It is a common occurrence that a superior will make a tender-hearted subordinate cry from the extensive criticism of a minor mistake. Part of the scientific process is presenting your work to your superiors and peers, and having them attempt to pick it apart. The gaps in your knowledge will be found by questioning in public. The faults of your experiment will be exposed, and discussed. It's humbling, and not in a good way. Science isn't particularly meant to be a feel-good enterprise, but the research culture is too vicious.
On the other hand, when the life of science is good, it's great. Currently I have tons of funding, a good work-life balance, effective leadership, and outrageously interesting research projects. The pay is still awful, and there are still a lot of vicious politics, but there's absolutely nothing like being able to plan an experiment, execute it, analyze the results, and then explain your results to others, thereby actually expanding human knowledge in some small or large way. That sensation is what keeps people in science, putting up with the bullshit-- the bad things just don't seem so heavy if you're one of the people who are electrified by the science.
The "E" (Engineering) part of STEM is high paying but the pay for "S" (Science) sucks because there is insufficient market/demand relative to the supply of Phds.
>>> I thought STEM already are the highest-paying industry jobs, so already worthwhile
Could this be a simple case of supply and demand:
"This is partly due to a lack of room at the top. In the United States, the number of PhDs entering the workforce has skyrocketed but the number of stable academic jobs has not. In 1973, nearly 90% of US PhDs working in academia held full-time faculty positions, compared with about 75% in 2010."
When supply does up, and demand goes down, price tends to drop. I would assume that with an influx of PhD's and not enough open spots, salaries tended to either stabilize or drop, making a career in academia not very worthwhile economically speaking.
Of course when I was working on my doctorate, one of my professors told me flat out, "Academia carries a lot of prestige, but the paychecks leave a lot to be desired."
The examples given highlight the three sucky things about academic jobs: (i) less money than top-tier alternatives, (ii) insane competition at the start of your career, and (iii) difficulty maintaining work-life balance if you want to be successful.
I had heard about (i) before I started my PhD. That didn't seem like a big deal since grad school was mostly paid for. I'd get annoyed when people assumed being a scientist meant that you'd never get rich. (ii) was a surprise at graduation time (around 2007). At that time, it was said to be the economy's fault. Almost a decade later, it is clear that there were structural changes going on in my field. If you were in CS, it was far easier to get a professor job during the first dot-com gold rush since CS enrollments were increasing like there was no tomorrow. Regarding (iii), I think this happens in every field. It matters who your spouse is and how supportive they are. Sometimes you learn to throw in the towel and get a good night's sleep. You also need to learn to be efficient. I admit I was not the most efficient graduate student. After working at industry research labs for many years, I am amazed by how much I've changed. I still spend too much time on irrelevant things like writing this comment or reading the article but hey .. no one's perfect.
Regarding the fields picked by the first two examples, I want to bang my head against a wall for my lack of timing. I missed the dot-com days and the app-rush. Also, before 2007, it was obvious that a finance job paid very well - it was hard work but so is everything worth doing. Today, it isn't clear if there are any paths to surefire financial success. In some places I've lived in (outside the US), it seems one of the highest compensating careers was flipping condos. The lesson I learn is to be constantly vigilant of potential opportunities and to strike as soon as possible.