Is there a postdoc crisis in academia? Prof. Alexander Gail shares his opinion on the topic

Рет қаралды 7,410

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 27

@TLTeo 6 ай бұрын

The fundamental problem this does not address is that there are not permanent positions for all postdocs, so Prof. Gail's suggestion that people should either leave the field earlier or not at all does not work. For most of us (I'm on my second postdoc currently), we feel like there are places to go to after our PhDs, but over time those places become fewer and fewer and they require worse and worse sacrifices, both professional and personal. That is what early career researchers refer to when they talk about a postdoc crisis. It creates a field that makes professors not out of the best scientists, mentors and educators (whatever that definition may be), but those who are most willing to compromise their personal life.

@neurosciencebeyond 5 ай бұрын

Hi @TLTeo! Thank you for taking the time and effort to write this comment! The topic you've raised is 100% valid and challenging to solve. I believe I discussed it in some previous episodes. We try to increase awareness of many flaws and problems in academia by discussing them in the last part of our episodes (10-15 minutes). Perhaps we should release several short videos summarizing these issues, including the one you've mentioned. If we want to make any change in the field, the first step, in my opinion, is to identify the problems and the reasons for this prblems and start openly dicsuss different ways of solving them as a community.

@danderas6377 7 ай бұрын

"There's no postdoc crisis in academia" is the equivalent of saying: "There's no war in Ban Sing Se"

@neurosciencebeyond 6 ай бұрын

Hey @danderas6377, thank you for your comment! Do you also have experience in academia?

@k2024-b8n 18 күн бұрын

Prof Gail provides very sensible suggestions that should be taken on board by people. Traditionally the decision to stay in Academia or go somewhere else is taken at the end of a PhD. At least this is what I tell my students and I think that is still correct. The reason why such decision is delayed is due to the fact that mental adolescence these days reaches into the early 20s. The number of people capable to absorb academic information is small not the least because people's mindspace is crowded with too much social (media) information: more than ever in the history of mankind. The consequence of that delay (compared to times prior to 2000) is that decision making on these issues moves into a time window in which (genetically defined) the highest degree of anxiety is to be found.

@neurosciencebeyond 18 күн бұрын

Thank you for your comment! While I partially agree that the influence of social media should be taken into account, I don't believe it is the primary factor behind this phenomenon. The structure of academic research and the academic system must be drastically changed; otherwise, it is doomed to fail miserably. :)

@k2024-b8n 6 күн бұрын

@@neurosciencebeyond The 'structure of academic research' suffers greatly if and when the future generation of researchers is incapable of concentrating, learning etc. Our culture of dedication for science is both gone and secondly has been oversaturated with unfulfillable expectations. Science is a craft and that requires many years of apprenticeship. What has changed (in some countries) is who pays for it. States pay less and less for the education of their workforce and spend more soaking up the qualified graduates of other countries who have done so. Politicians rather spend money fighting wars (very easy to send billions to others to buy weapons, very difficult to keep the fickle human beings on a straight and narrow track...). Now with migration becoming more of a hot iron globally societies are losing this ability to rejuvenate their workforce (by attracting qualified people that have been educated elsewhere).

@servicekid7453 6 ай бұрын

This guy is delusional. Academia has created a system that rewards toxic behaviour. That’s why people leave

@neurosciencebeyond 5 ай бұрын

Hey @servicekid7453 :) Thank you for your comment! Do you have any experience in or outside of academia? It would be fantastic to hear more about your perspective. I also want to remind everyone that we aim to foster discussions based on mutual respect and understanding. Let's keep the conversation respectful and constructive.

@servicekid7453 5 ай бұрын

@@neurosciencebeyond yes 10 years in academia before I was brave enough to get out. Academia has 3 principal problems, none of which it has any strategy or motivation to fix: i) it is hugely wasteful of talent. We put far too many people through grad school then take bright and motivated young scientists and feed them through a meat grinder. What comes out the other end is mostly burnt out, financially impoverished and hacked off ex-postdocs who are often over qualified for most other jobs and find it difficult to start their careers over again in the private sector. Of course this will never get fixed because PhD students and post-docs do most of the actual labwork that generates data for papers ii) Impact factor was never designed as a measure of quality but it has become the second most important metric in hirings and promotions. Impact factor was designed to help librarians decide what to stock on the shelves - ie pick the journals that are most widely read, since if you have those available your clients might actually use your library and your budget won't get sliced. But it was an easy and quick way to rank people, so hey presto here we are. If one single thing is more responsible for the surge in research misconduct than anything else, it is the need to achieve high impact factors. iii) Funding models are a complete mess. We take lots of very bright people, then underfund all of them and let them fight like rats in a sack for every last penny. It creates perverse incentives to screw over your competitor labs and even your own departmental colleagues. Some people are terrified, some people are numbed by it, some take a kind of sadistic glee in it but it's still mostly a horrible toxic manipulative contrivance. The absolute worst colleagues I have had, 100%, were in academia. No-one in the private sector I've worked with has ever come close to matching the nastiness of academics I have known. When anyone asks me about doing a PhD I ask why and in 9/10 cases I advise them not to do it. My own supervisor advised me against going into research. I'm proud of my work and I never thought I would be remotely important or well-known, I just wanted to do some interesting experiments and get it published and cited, but I paid a really high price for it in terms of my health and family life

@gilian2587 3 ай бұрын

Given that there are not enough positions available in academia to cater to all the graduates in the first place; it's necessary for the graduates who are not placed to allocate themselves elsewhere. I don't know how many phds become farmers; but there are theoretically market conditions that could make that happen.

@servicekid7453 3 ай бұрын

@@gilian2587 if the tenured positions in academia were awarded on merit I might agree with you, but they aren’t. Academia is rife with charlatans, bullies, liars and cheats. Many of them get tenure despite their appalling lack of integrity. ethics and decency.

@neurosciencebeyond 18 күн бұрын

@@servicekid7453 Thank you for your valuable comment! Somehow, this comment escaped my radar, and I’m just seeing it now. I’m sorry to hear that you’ve struggled throughout your academic life, but I’m glad to hear that you’ve found fulfillment elsewhere. I completely agree with the three points you mentioned. The question I’m trying to answer through all these interviews is: how do we fix it? And is it even worth fixing, or would creating a new system be easier and more effective? I love science and scientific work, but the way science is conducted needs to change immediately.

@KenNeumeister 6 ай бұрын

Could the solution be to create a new degree distinct from PhD with its implication of eligibility to enter academia career track within universities. This might also help in developing technical skills by freeing up from the demands for publishing papers primarily for the sake of academic advancement. (a trade-school for doing research for hire)

@neurosciencebeyond 6 ай бұрын

@user-iq2yp1dn1q, thank you for your comment! So, you're suggesting a separate degree that would specifically prepare young scientists for tenure-track positions? If I understood you correctly, I think you raise an interesting point. The idea behind a PhD is indeed to support academic careers. However, the reality is that the 'supply' of PhD graduates far exceeds the 'demand' for tenure-track positions, which is one reason many well-trained young scientists decide to leave academia. Perhaps a separate degree aimed specifically at preparing young scientists for the job market outside academia would also be valuable. Such a degree could focus on industry-relevant skills and provide a clear career path for those not pursuing academic roles. Of course, there are many problems in academia that need to be addressed, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Your suggestion opens up an important conversation about how we can better align educational pathways with career outcomes.