The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
ENHANCING THE POSTDOCTORAL EXPERIENCE FOR SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS: A Guide for Postdoctoral Scholars, Advisers, Institutions, Funding Organizations, and Disciplinary Societies
rewarding of their lives. The debate focused instead on institutional standing, compensation, benefits, and other issues, which cause many postdocs to question the value of the experience. As some indicated, the lost-opportunity costs of forsaking other employment begin to outweigh the benefits of an otherwise fulfilling experience.
Some postdoc advisers and representatives of funding organizations indicated that the low compensation received by many postdocs is justified because it is offset by the benefits of supervised education and training.15 Some postdocs, however, stated that they are regarded primarily as a “skilled pair of hands” that support the work of the principal investigator (PI), rather than as junior colleagues who only require further education and training to move toward their own research independence.
Increasing age.
Issues of standing and compensation are exacerbated by the increasing age of the postdoctoral population. Today's junior scientists and engineers take longer to complete their doctorates (the average PhD recipient in the life sciences is 32 years old),16 and many then take two or even three postdoctoral positions. In the Baylor survey, 67 percent of respondents were over age 30 and 21 percent were over age 35; 46 percent had children. The NSF reports a similar picture among the postdocs it funds (see further discussion in Chapter 2). Although many postdocs have families that include children, few institutions or funding organizations provide family health insurance, child care, or other family benefits received by others of similar professional stature. The same is true of their salary (Table 1-2).
A debate over responsibility.
Another debate that emerged during focus groups concerned whether the host institution or the funding organization bears the primary responsibility for providing benefits and oversight for the postdoc.
Some PI's are reluctant to increase the salaries of their postdocs due to limited funds and the possible reduction in the number of postdocs they could fund. Even if they wish to do so, postdoc advisers indicated they face barriers from both the institution and the funding organization at the proposal acceptance stage and once funding is received. Some major funding organizations stated that institutions are directly responsible because they set salary compensation levels and receive funding (as a designated portion of each grant) from which to provide fringe benefits. Many institutions contend that funding organizations are primarily responsible, because they set the standard at which most postdocs are compensated. In particular, many universities use the scale NIH has developed for its National Research Service Award as it is the only standard available.
15
E.g., good supervision, depending on the postdoc's level of experience and skill, might include guidance in planning a research program, obtaining funding, managing a lab, mentoring others, and finding a permanent position.
16
The NRC's report Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists found that life scientists in the 1990s took two years longer to complete a doctorate than their predecessors of the 1960s and 70s.
Items in cart [0]
