As if the Ph.D. weren't enough... well, it isn't enough. I'm now leafing through catalogs of different programs in the business world. The one that seems to have the most merit, at least, in terms of increasing earning power according to Harvard, is the MBA.
It's weird to think of going back to school. Part of me says, "Seriously? Are you seriously considering this after 11 years of post-graduate study (not to mention the post-doc)?" Not to mention it would be part-time and completely consume any resources I have outside of actual work. And the other part sees it as a necessary evil to gain credibility in a world I was not primarily trained for. The funny thing is, it's not like I don't have the skills or couldn't learn them in the job I currently have. It's just that, if this job isn't forever (what job is?), I'll need to be job-searching sometime in the future, and experience without a credential is somewhat flimsy. Or at least I think it is flimsy because I've never tried to look for another job after this one. Sigh. Me and my ridiculous search for the best credential. I wonder if it is all in my mind. The jobs I want to take all have people in them with J.D. (no thanks, I'm not going back for 6-8 years for part-time Law!) or MBA or a business degree with Accounting, or at the very least (still a long slog) a project management accreditation.
I guess the struggle now is - do I build solely experience and worry about the next job when I need it? Or think closely about improving how I look on paper in addition to real experience? I know when I got in two years ago after academia, it was all about the experience. But now, I actually need to compete with people that went to school for this. Seems like MBAs are all over the place.
At any rate, this is so much more of a first-world problem, which differs vastly from where I was two years ago trying to make ends meet and get out of the postdoc! I suppose that is a victory in and of itself.
Thoughts?
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
How are you faring?
It's been a long time...
A really long time...
I'm still pressing on in the job that I first got when I left. It's good and bad. It's nice that it isn't a really big company so it's not like you have to steer a supertanker to effect change. It's not so nice that it's a small company that is lacking a lot of procedure.
I'm all about efficiency lately. It's crazy to come full circle from academia, where efficiency is rarely talked about (other than profs that are pushing out the Least Publishable Unit) to industry where operations are currently being tweaked to increase efficiency. Each hour you put in during the day should be motivated by, "How did you make money for the company today?" Sometimes, it's too short-sighted, as I talked about on the last post, but it really puts into check how you spend your time. I really like that part.
I've moved up the ranks into a managerial position. People problems consume a large part of my time. Why can't that person work with the guy in the corner? What's the backstory? How much do we play politics to keep people engaged and motivated and how much do we just say, "You know what? We're paying you so get your fricken job done." It's pretty weird to consider where I was two years ago...
And the degree itself? Well, I guess I have come to terms with it a bit more. It's nice to say that I have a Ph.D. In some respects, there is a bit of credibility there too. Does it help me in my current position? No, other than it built reasoning capacity, which is important, but probably could have been picked up along the way. So I guess I would say the intangible things I developed during my Ph.D were good things. Would I do it again? Never.
A really long time...
I'm still pressing on in the job that I first got when I left. It's good and bad. It's nice that it isn't a really big company so it's not like you have to steer a supertanker to effect change. It's not so nice that it's a small company that is lacking a lot of procedure.
I'm all about efficiency lately. It's crazy to come full circle from academia, where efficiency is rarely talked about (other than profs that are pushing out the Least Publishable Unit) to industry where operations are currently being tweaked to increase efficiency. Each hour you put in during the day should be motivated by, "How did you make money for the company today?" Sometimes, it's too short-sighted, as I talked about on the last post, but it really puts into check how you spend your time. I really like that part.
I've moved up the ranks into a managerial position. People problems consume a large part of my time. Why can't that person work with the guy in the corner? What's the backstory? How much do we play politics to keep people engaged and motivated and how much do we just say, "You know what? We're paying you so get your fricken job done." It's pretty weird to consider where I was two years ago...
And the degree itself? Well, I guess I have come to terms with it a bit more. It's nice to say that I have a Ph.D. In some respects, there is a bit of credibility there too. Does it help me in my current position? No, other than it built reasoning capacity, which is important, but probably could have been picked up along the way. So I guess I would say the intangible things I developed during my Ph.D were good things. Would I do it again? Never.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Hectic pace
The nice thing about being in academic circles is the ability to take your time and think things through. Generally, when it comes to papers, I found there was one relatively large problem that needed to be solved. Solving the problem took time, and it was up to the author (me) to take the time and thoroughly investigate the problem, and ensure the solution made sense. Of course, it was important to solve the problem relatively quickly to get the paper out, but in the end, solving the problem correctly was dominant.
In my experience, that isn't the case in industry. There isn't time to reflect on the problem and investigate multiple scenarios. You generally pick your gut instinct and go with it. Granted, the problems in industry are solved quickly and you can tell immediately if it works or not, but the 'laid back' atmosphere of problem-solving from academia is non-existent. You just need to make things work. And when they work, it's time to move on. That problem is ancient history - no longer present to be criticized by a panel of scholars during peer review.
This is good and bad. Good: any single problem is not important enough to piss and moan about for months. Bad: you no longer have time to fully employ your reasoning and evaluate (and re-evaluate) the solution. It's hectic. It's a madhouse. But at the end of the day, you can forget about it.
The slow pace of academia was already not in-line with my personality. I would procrastinate and throw away days/weeks working on minute details. So I was already prepared (in a way) for a quicker atmosphere, and I would assume that most people leaving academia would have a similar mindset. It is a bit of an adjustment though...
In my experience, that isn't the case in industry. There isn't time to reflect on the problem and investigate multiple scenarios. You generally pick your gut instinct and go with it. Granted, the problems in industry are solved quickly and you can tell immediately if it works or not, but the 'laid back' atmosphere of problem-solving from academia is non-existent. You just need to make things work. And when they work, it's time to move on. That problem is ancient history - no longer present to be criticized by a panel of scholars during peer review.
This is good and bad. Good: any single problem is not important enough to piss and moan about for months. Bad: you no longer have time to fully employ your reasoning and evaluate (and re-evaluate) the solution. It's hectic. It's a madhouse. But at the end of the day, you can forget about it.
The slow pace of academia was already not in-line with my personality. I would procrastinate and throw away days/weeks working on minute details. So I was already prepared (in a way) for a quicker atmosphere, and I would assume that most people leaving academia would have a similar mindset. It is a bit of an adjustment though...
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
On the Dark Side...
When considering Industry, I was always apprehensive about Challenge. I figured that Industry jobs would be mundane and tedious, performing the same tasks day-in and day-out. When we think of Academia, we are inspired by the never-ending pursuit of knowledge; the cardinal rule of applying a new technique/method/analysis to an unsolved problem. During my graduate and postdoc studies (to a certain extent), I believed I was advancing human knowledge by my research (how vain it sounds!), even though it was pertinent to a small applied field. How could Industry possible compete? Industry relied on Academia to forge new methods in order to combat prevalent problems in society. Industry took a backseat to the innovations produced by Academia. Industry merely applied 'old' solutions to problems that were conceived and solved in Academia.
Being on the other side, I realize this is still partially true. Industry is not solely concerned with solving problems that have been otherwise insoluble. The kicker is, Industry is concerned with applying (and developing) solutions that actually matter. Though Academia may rejoice in its laurels as a producer that upholds unrestricted freedom of research, I now subscribe to the mindset that Industry manufactures the real test of whether or not a production of research really matters.
The problem with Academia, in my opinion, is that it does not care how the innovation can be applied, or if it can be applied. In a certain sense, this is ok - we don't necessarily want to restrict the scope of research as new innovations are often found from obscure methods. However, I feel strongly that there is too much 'research for the sake of research' going on. (Think of how many PIs you know that solely care about the amount of papers/grants they can publish/obtain). Though I haven't the time nor the inclination to provide due diligence on the subject, I often wonder how many researchers there were at the time of Einstein or Pauling compared to the modern era.
Two points:
1. Do we really need this much investment into research? and,
2. Industry is not tedious, mundane application of proven methods, but rather a justification and proper application (with appropriate research) of solutions to problems.
It's been a long ride, but I am truly enjoying Industry, and I don't miss Academia for a second.
Being on the other side, I realize this is still partially true. Industry is not solely concerned with solving problems that have been otherwise insoluble. The kicker is, Industry is concerned with applying (and developing) solutions that actually matter. Though Academia may rejoice in its laurels as a producer that upholds unrestricted freedom of research, I now subscribe to the mindset that Industry manufactures the real test of whether or not a production of research really matters.
The problem with Academia, in my opinion, is that it does not care how the innovation can be applied, or if it can be applied. In a certain sense, this is ok - we don't necessarily want to restrict the scope of research as new innovations are often found from obscure methods. However, I feel strongly that there is too much 'research for the sake of research' going on. (Think of how many PIs you know that solely care about the amount of papers/grants they can publish/obtain). Though I haven't the time nor the inclination to provide due diligence on the subject, I often wonder how many researchers there were at the time of Einstein or Pauling compared to the modern era.
Two points:
1. Do we really need this much investment into research? and,
2. Industry is not tedious, mundane application of proven methods, but rather a justification and proper application (with appropriate research) of solutions to problems.
It's been a long ride, but I am truly enjoying Industry, and I don't miss Academia for a second.
Monday, December 30, 2013
How do things look now?
It's been a few months since the last update...
The reason being, I didn't want to 'jinx' myself. It's not that I am superstitious, but I wanted to wait until things had cleared a bit. What is going on now?
I have left academia. It's gone. Although it hasn't been too long (roughly 5 months), I think I can safely say I am done with it. When I came back to the city I wanted to live in, the first jobs I looked into were academia based at a university close by. Everything looked quite good - there was funding for a five-year position and it needed to be filled soon because the time on the grant was ticking. I talked to quite a few profs that were very interested in what I wanted to bring to the university. However, a number of factors needed to be in place before any formal position would work out. Part-time seemed to be ok (although later didn't work out at all because the profs couldn't figure out what part-time meant), but for a full-time position, a few different funding sources needed to come together to produce the entire package. And, as we all know, university funding is the slowest procedure out there...
In the meantime, I was in contact with a group since last January (outside academia) that seemed to be slow on the uptake. Additionally, I contacted everyone I knew in my field and also in fields completely unrelated to anything I had ever done. Everything was looking bleak. I even put my application in to several grocery/stationary stores and temp agencies because I knew the university would take forever to figure it out.
I ended up dropping in personally to the company I had been in contact with since January a couple of times, and landed an audition. Everything seemed to go well, but I was still a bit cautious as I knew (after 100s of applications to industry jobs, seriously I think I counted 110) that things don't seem to work out.
I landed a really good job with that company. They were interested in applying my background to some of the projects they had on the table, and also furthering some of the skills I had learned in my Ph.D./postdoc studies. It worked out incredibly - the day that my old checks ran out (vacation pay) my new job started. I definitely felt 'looked after' by God, and I know that that may not strike a chord with several of you, but I know what happened and the circumstances behind it.
What happened to the university job that looked so great? Even though I have been in contact with them for the last several weeks, I have heard nothing. They are still tripping over themselves trying to figure it out. Not to mention that they need to post the position internationally for three months (it is a full-time academic position...). Basically, I don't know if they will ever figure it out, and at this point, I am glad that they didn't figure it out in time for me.
How does it feel? In one word - incredible. The job I am doing has real deadlines. These deadlines benefit the company, are short-term, and my future career is not at stake (well, it is in a way if I did crappy work, but not in the way of 'I need more papers; I need more grants'). Usually, during the holiday season, I am pretty stressed and I plan out the next year of how many papers/grants I will be submitting, and I always feel bad about not doing enough during the previous year. But guess what? With my new, non-academic job, I am fulfilled knowing I did the best I could and that my future is not riding on how many papers I get in the future. I actually enjoyed the break, in contrast to having a break where I need to re-motivate myself so that I can get more crap submitted. Not for one second do I miss the old academic routine. Since I have quit, I have had several past supervisors wondering when I will submit such-and-such a paper, and it is an incredible relief to just say, 'I'm sorry, but I won't be doing that paper anymore, unless it is contract work that you are willing to pay for'. Of course, they never get back to me after I say that - they are just trying to get as much as they can for as little effort as possible. Cheap academic bastards. It is so refreshing to see it from a different viewpoint, and not feeling the underlying guilt of not finishing a paper. Granted, at this point, I still feel a bit of allegiance or something to my past supervisors, and when they came 'a-calling', I even felt scared telling them to politely 'screw off', as I don't feel entirely free of the academic vice grip, but at the same time, the feeling of a true industry job as a foundation to stand on is indescribable.
To all those looking to make a break:
If you know deep-down the academic life is not for you, it is time. Regardless of what you do, you will probably make the same or more money than you did as a postdoc, and the work will be no less challenging on your brain because of your skills. You will get to interact with real people. You won't be doing goofy non-essential research on something that will never be used/read, because that would be left on the chopping floor long before it is undertaken. Looking back at it now, I would never have completed a postdoc or the Ph.D., and I would even change my B.Sc. to focus on more mindful industry areas prevalent in the region that I wanted to live in. Definitely do not move somewhere foreign to do a postdoc. Take it from me, it is not worth it. I don't know what it is like to be a superhuman researcher like Dr. Einstein or Dr. Hawking, so if you are in those leagues, obviously this doesn't apply. But, if you think you are smart, have the 'right' amount of papers/grants, know the 'right' people, have graduated from the 'right' university and also undertaken the 'right' postdoc (i.e. excellent pedigree - ivy leagues), and things still seem messy, GET OUT NOW! It won't get better. The last four years of my six-year postdoc life were hell on earth (obviously, this is hyperbolic) which I wish I could get back.
I wish you all the best. I'll keep updating with interesting things from a postdoc who has left academia.
Yours truly,
Aimless
The reason being, I didn't want to 'jinx' myself. It's not that I am superstitious, but I wanted to wait until things had cleared a bit. What is going on now?
I have left academia. It's gone. Although it hasn't been too long (roughly 5 months), I think I can safely say I am done with it. When I came back to the city I wanted to live in, the first jobs I looked into were academia based at a university close by. Everything looked quite good - there was funding for a five-year position and it needed to be filled soon because the time on the grant was ticking. I talked to quite a few profs that were very interested in what I wanted to bring to the university. However, a number of factors needed to be in place before any formal position would work out. Part-time seemed to be ok (although later didn't work out at all because the profs couldn't figure out what part-time meant), but for a full-time position, a few different funding sources needed to come together to produce the entire package. And, as we all know, university funding is the slowest procedure out there...
In the meantime, I was in contact with a group since last January (outside academia) that seemed to be slow on the uptake. Additionally, I contacted everyone I knew in my field and also in fields completely unrelated to anything I had ever done. Everything was looking bleak. I even put my application in to several grocery/stationary stores and temp agencies because I knew the university would take forever to figure it out.
I ended up dropping in personally to the company I had been in contact with since January a couple of times, and landed an audition. Everything seemed to go well, but I was still a bit cautious as I knew (after 100s of applications to industry jobs, seriously I think I counted 110) that things don't seem to work out.
I landed a really good job with that company. They were interested in applying my background to some of the projects they had on the table, and also furthering some of the skills I had learned in my Ph.D./postdoc studies. It worked out incredibly - the day that my old checks ran out (vacation pay) my new job started. I definitely felt 'looked after' by God, and I know that that may not strike a chord with several of you, but I know what happened and the circumstances behind it.
What happened to the university job that looked so great? Even though I have been in contact with them for the last several weeks, I have heard nothing. They are still tripping over themselves trying to figure it out. Not to mention that they need to post the position internationally for three months (it is a full-time academic position...). Basically, I don't know if they will ever figure it out, and at this point, I am glad that they didn't figure it out in time for me.
How does it feel? In one word - incredible. The job I am doing has real deadlines. These deadlines benefit the company, are short-term, and my future career is not at stake (well, it is in a way if I did crappy work, but not in the way of 'I need more papers; I need more grants'). Usually, during the holiday season, I am pretty stressed and I plan out the next year of how many papers/grants I will be submitting, and I always feel bad about not doing enough during the previous year. But guess what? With my new, non-academic job, I am fulfilled knowing I did the best I could and that my future is not riding on how many papers I get in the future. I actually enjoyed the break, in contrast to having a break where I need to re-motivate myself so that I can get more crap submitted. Not for one second do I miss the old academic routine. Since I have quit, I have had several past supervisors wondering when I will submit such-and-such a paper, and it is an incredible relief to just say, 'I'm sorry, but I won't be doing that paper anymore, unless it is contract work that you are willing to pay for'. Of course, they never get back to me after I say that - they are just trying to get as much as they can for as little effort as possible. Cheap academic bastards. It is so refreshing to see it from a different viewpoint, and not feeling the underlying guilt of not finishing a paper. Granted, at this point, I still feel a bit of allegiance or something to my past supervisors, and when they came 'a-calling', I even felt scared telling them to politely 'screw off', as I don't feel entirely free of the academic vice grip, but at the same time, the feeling of a true industry job as a foundation to stand on is indescribable.
To all those looking to make a break:
If you know deep-down the academic life is not for you, it is time. Regardless of what you do, you will probably make the same or more money than you did as a postdoc, and the work will be no less challenging on your brain because of your skills. You will get to interact with real people. You won't be doing goofy non-essential research on something that will never be used/read, because that would be left on the chopping floor long before it is undertaken. Looking back at it now, I would never have completed a postdoc or the Ph.D., and I would even change my B.Sc. to focus on more mindful industry areas prevalent in the region that I wanted to live in. Definitely do not move somewhere foreign to do a postdoc. Take it from me, it is not worth it. I don't know what it is like to be a superhuman researcher like Dr. Einstein or Dr. Hawking, so if you are in those leagues, obviously this doesn't apply. But, if you think you are smart, have the 'right' amount of papers/grants, know the 'right' people, have graduated from the 'right' university and also undertaken the 'right' postdoc (i.e. excellent pedigree - ivy leagues), and things still seem messy, GET OUT NOW! It won't get better. The last four years of my six-year postdoc life were hell on earth (obviously, this is hyperbolic) which I wish I could get back.
I wish you all the best. I'll keep updating with interesting things from a postdoc who has left academia.
Yours truly,
Aimless
Thursday, August 15, 2013
I did it.
I up and left.
I completely relocated to the city I wanted to live in, with no real job prospects in sight.
Smart move? I am not sure right now - with no job to fall back on, it doesn't feel like the right decision. It feels like a mess. There is a university in the town I have moved to that does research in the field I have worked in, but it is the same old song-and-dance - positions need to be posted internationally (which means up to a year before anything materializes), and no funding to hire anyone. And, it would be some stupid academic postdoc with no future after the funding runs out. Sure, they like what I have done and would like me to work for them, but obviously I can't do it for free. I knew this when I moved. It seems stupid now, to leave a postdoc that at least paid me for about another year. I try to rationalize my decision with the prospect of an actual career in another field. I know I will be starting from the bottom again, and that is ok, but it is incredibly difficult to convey my skills to people that aren't familiar with academia. I've had a couple of interviews outside academia, with some success, but no concrete job offers. I am now a firm believer that it is not what you know (outside academia), but that you need an 'in' with someone in the industry.
In a way, it is liberating - I can embark on a new career, something with real potential in terms of future development. But this is only an ideological argument inside my short-sighted envisage of the future. Until I secure even the 'next job' or the 'temporary job', it seems as though I have made the wrong decision. I was on the cusp of finishing a great deal of projects with my old postdoc; things that promised productivity (papers/grants/abstracts) in the next year. But for what? Another lost year on the academic job market?
I am very excited to be out of my former position. But, if it doesn't pay off with some position somewhere, what's the point? Don't get me wrong, I am not looking for management-type positions, I just need a foot in the door. Is there anyone willing to give a smart, willing-to-learn Ph.D. graduate a chance? I need a job to start in the next two weeks before my 'holidays' expire, and only time will tell if it will be bagging groceries or building sandwiches for the local coffee shop.
I need to make a living... This point is not stressed enough in the post-academic-leaving circles...
Which brings me to the underlining point - my Ph.D. is completely useless. Even the B.Sc. doesn't do me much good. Is academia the route for you? Maybe, if you are doing a professional degree (engineering, medicine, dentistry), but otherwise, I would say, "Think twice before beginning any degree program". The old adage that you should do something you like is complete bullshit if there is no market for it. How do you pay the bills, even with a job that you love, if no one wants to pay you for your services? Although it is extremely difficult to see the big picture when you graduate from high school, ask yourself the question: "Are there any jobs available when I finish my degree?" Or, "What industries are looking for science graduates?" Basic research at its finest. That, my friends, is what I wish I would have done if I could erase the past fifteen years.
I completely relocated to the city I wanted to live in, with no real job prospects in sight.
Smart move? I am not sure right now - with no job to fall back on, it doesn't feel like the right decision. It feels like a mess. There is a university in the town I have moved to that does research in the field I have worked in, but it is the same old song-and-dance - positions need to be posted internationally (which means up to a year before anything materializes), and no funding to hire anyone. And, it would be some stupid academic postdoc with no future after the funding runs out. Sure, they like what I have done and would like me to work for them, but obviously I can't do it for free. I knew this when I moved. It seems stupid now, to leave a postdoc that at least paid me for about another year. I try to rationalize my decision with the prospect of an actual career in another field. I know I will be starting from the bottom again, and that is ok, but it is incredibly difficult to convey my skills to people that aren't familiar with academia. I've had a couple of interviews outside academia, with some success, but no concrete job offers. I am now a firm believer that it is not what you know (outside academia), but that you need an 'in' with someone in the industry.
In a way, it is liberating - I can embark on a new career, something with real potential in terms of future development. But this is only an ideological argument inside my short-sighted envisage of the future. Until I secure even the 'next job' or the 'temporary job', it seems as though I have made the wrong decision. I was on the cusp of finishing a great deal of projects with my old postdoc; things that promised productivity (papers/grants/abstracts) in the next year. But for what? Another lost year on the academic job market?
I am very excited to be out of my former position. But, if it doesn't pay off with some position somewhere, what's the point? Don't get me wrong, I am not looking for management-type positions, I just need a foot in the door. Is there anyone willing to give a smart, willing-to-learn Ph.D. graduate a chance? I need a job to start in the next two weeks before my 'holidays' expire, and only time will tell if it will be bagging groceries or building sandwiches for the local coffee shop.
I need to make a living... This point is not stressed enough in the post-academic-leaving circles...
Which brings me to the underlining point - my Ph.D. is completely useless. Even the B.Sc. doesn't do me much good. Is academia the route for you? Maybe, if you are doing a professional degree (engineering, medicine, dentistry), but otherwise, I would say, "Think twice before beginning any degree program". The old adage that you should do something you like is complete bullshit if there is no market for it. How do you pay the bills, even with a job that you love, if no one wants to pay you for your services? Although it is extremely difficult to see the big picture when you graduate from high school, ask yourself the question: "Are there any jobs available when I finish my degree?" Or, "What industries are looking for science graduates?" Basic research at its finest. That, my friends, is what I wish I would have done if I could erase the past fifteen years.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Giving advice
I am not sure what to think about all the advice out there about leaving academia, particularly during the postdoc years. There are many blogs and articles about leaving - how you should do it, why you should, where to look for jobs, how to tailor your CV/resume, etc. - but a question remains to be answered, namely, "Has anyone actually done it and found a good job?" I have visited many sites of those who have left graduate school/postdoc and found jobs outside of academia, but they (the ones I have seen anyway) all seem to be stuck in a worse situation or job than when they were in academia! There may be a few that have found jobs outside they enjoy, but it is very limited. Where are all the successful, awesome, industry-employed, postdoc-science leavers now? Sure, you can read the odd article about how someone switched 10 or 20 years ago and is now a scientist at NASA or something, but that is the worst case of misinformation for the current job force (almost as bad as saying the academic market is the same as it was 15 years ago).
Now, assuming that most recent postdoc leavers or would-be leavers (in science) have not found good employment outside academia, what gives us the right (I have done this also) to push people to leave? Do we want to comfort our agony with more company? How are we qualified to give this information, provided we haven't made a claim on a good job outside academia? I realize that staying in the postdoc world may also have emotional problems as well, but I am starting to think that being healthy emotionally is not necessarily achieved solely by leaving your postdoc.
This all comes as I have been re-evaluating my industrial/other job search. Last year, I felt great thinking that I could find a job other than a professorship and I was comforted that others were forging through the same mess I was. At the time, and I realize it was my fault, I construed the information I gleaned from others' experience as advice and confirmation that my decision was not foolhardy. It would only be a matter of time (a few months) to get a decent job, or so I thought (as did others giving advice/experiences on leaving), and that has slowly decayed into another lost year. Again, given my (and others') poor experience, how do we justify instructing future postdoc leavers? It's kind of like teaching someone to drive a car without ever having been behind the wheel yourself.
Granted, blogging is about conveying your experiences and feelings, and I guess many blogs out there aren't necessarily about directing the next generation per se, but it often comes off as advice. What I am trying to say, though not so eloquently, is: There is no guidance for those in our particular situation, and though we can take solace in recognizing we are not alone, being accompanied on the journey does not mean you are following the right route.
Do you have a different experience than mine? Am I missing something that you might be aware of? Like always, I look forward to your input.
Disclaimer: This may be nothing more than a cry for help in finding 'successful' (whatever that means) science postdoc leavers, and I am not criticizing anyone in particular.
Now, assuming that most recent postdoc leavers or would-be leavers (in science) have not found good employment outside academia, what gives us the right (I have done this also) to push people to leave? Do we want to comfort our agony with more company? How are we qualified to give this information, provided we haven't made a claim on a good job outside academia? I realize that staying in the postdoc world may also have emotional problems as well, but I am starting to think that being healthy emotionally is not necessarily achieved solely by leaving your postdoc.
This all comes as I have been re-evaluating my industrial/other job search. Last year, I felt great thinking that I could find a job other than a professorship and I was comforted that others were forging through the same mess I was. At the time, and I realize it was my fault, I construed the information I gleaned from others' experience as advice and confirmation that my decision was not foolhardy. It would only be a matter of time (a few months) to get a decent job, or so I thought (as did others giving advice/experiences on leaving), and that has slowly decayed into another lost year. Again, given my (and others') poor experience, how do we justify instructing future postdoc leavers? It's kind of like teaching someone to drive a car without ever having been behind the wheel yourself.
Granted, blogging is about conveying your experiences and feelings, and I guess many blogs out there aren't necessarily about directing the next generation per se, but it often comes off as advice. What I am trying to say, though not so eloquently, is: There is no guidance for those in our particular situation, and though we can take solace in recognizing we are not alone, being accompanied on the journey does not mean you are following the right route.
Do you have a different experience than mine? Am I missing something that you might be aware of? Like always, I look forward to your input.
Disclaimer: This may be nothing more than a cry for help in finding 'successful' (whatever that means) science postdoc leavers, and I am not criticizing anyone in particular.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Flip-flop
One year has passed since I started seeking jobs outside academia in earnest, and it is a good time to re-evaluate. This morning I was trying to count the number of applications that I submitted to academic jobs - and by that I mean 'real' applications for open positions and not just cold-calling by sending CVs to people that I have some links with. I could only count 6. Only 6! All this time I thought I had submitted at least 20 to academic positions, and it was actually only 6. In addition, it seems my earning power (see last post) is still the best if I were to become a professor. I don't think 6 applications is enough to judge whether or not I could land an academic job, and I actually had a phone interview for one of them. It seems (although the sample size isn't big enough to be conclusive) that I haven't given a professorship a fair shot, and that I may have better chances than getting an industry position.
So, the questions are: "Do I want to be a professor", and "Am I ok with living somewhere (anywhere, really) else?" The first question is pretty easy - I have been trained to be a professor, I am good at research and writing, and I really do like the work. So yes, I would be happy with a professor position. The second question is a bit difficult. Unfortunately, there will never be an opening in the place I truly want to live (by family and friends), and given my failure at getting an industrial position there also, this means: if I truly want to live where I want, I should just pack up now (quit the postdoc) and concentrate on settling there and hope that something works out in industry. And it doesn't make sense to keep getting postdoc experience - it is best to get there and start figuring things out.
I guess I have established that I haven't tried securing academic jobs hard enough (and I don't think I am just saying that because I am falling back on the familiar, but this is always a concern) and that the real question right now is: "How important is the place where I live?" I know I am not overly comfortable living as far away from family as I am right now, and it seems to me (right now) that this is very important because I don't want to just show up for funerals. I also know that being a postdoc has intensified this as I have no means of visiting family and friends because I don't have the budget for it. Maybe, if I was making more (as a professor or otherwise), it wouldn't be so bad as I could make the trip back for visiting. Unfortunately, this is not something I will be able to test in the near future, and I will only know it after making the leap.
Also, unfortunately, none of this takes into account the lack of professor jobs. But, I think I can convince myself (with having over 80 unsuccessful applications) that industrial jobs are no easier to come by. I need to make a choice. My current thought process of leaving academia and going the industrial route is seriously hampering my current postdoc production, and is very hard on my mental state as I have become quite depressed lately. I either need to decide to move back to family and friends and my home city, or I need to temporarily give up the industrial job search and concentrate on my current 'job' and a future professorship. And this decision needs to be made soon (end of March) so that I can give my notice, quit messing around with my postdoc, and get on with my life. Hmmm, not sure about this one. Any advice?
So, the questions are: "Do I want to be a professor", and "Am I ok with living somewhere (anywhere, really) else?" The first question is pretty easy - I have been trained to be a professor, I am good at research and writing, and I really do like the work. So yes, I would be happy with a professor position. The second question is a bit difficult. Unfortunately, there will never be an opening in the place I truly want to live (by family and friends), and given my failure at getting an industrial position there also, this means: if I truly want to live where I want, I should just pack up now (quit the postdoc) and concentrate on settling there and hope that something works out in industry. And it doesn't make sense to keep getting postdoc experience - it is best to get there and start figuring things out.
I guess I have established that I haven't tried securing academic jobs hard enough (and I don't think I am just saying that because I am falling back on the familiar, but this is always a concern) and that the real question right now is: "How important is the place where I live?" I know I am not overly comfortable living as far away from family as I am right now, and it seems to me (right now) that this is very important because I don't want to just show up for funerals. I also know that being a postdoc has intensified this as I have no means of visiting family and friends because I don't have the budget for it. Maybe, if I was making more (as a professor or otherwise), it wouldn't be so bad as I could make the trip back for visiting. Unfortunately, this is not something I will be able to test in the near future, and I will only know it after making the leap.
Also, unfortunately, none of this takes into account the lack of professor jobs. But, I think I can convince myself (with having over 80 unsuccessful applications) that industrial jobs are no easier to come by. I need to make a choice. My current thought process of leaving academia and going the industrial route is seriously hampering my current postdoc production, and is very hard on my mental state as I have become quite depressed lately. I either need to decide to move back to family and friends and my home city, or I need to temporarily give up the industrial job search and concentrate on my current 'job' and a future professorship. And this decision needs to be made soon (end of March) so that I can give my notice, quit messing around with my postdoc, and get on with my life. Hmmm, not sure about this one. Any advice?
Friday, March 1, 2013
Earning power
It's been just over one year since I submitted my first job application to a non-academic position. I completely remember this one, and I even wrote down my login credentials for the application site, so I thought it might be nostalgic to check it out. The funny thing is, the site still says "Application Under Review". So much for an applicant tracking system...
In trying to stick to logical arguments as I have brought up in previous posts, this entry is a way of proving (albeit in a hand-wavy sort of way) why someone should not go to grad school based on cumulative earning power in a person's life. I have seen this argument before, and it is typically used to show that getting a university degree is a good investment in the long run financially. So, with some information I have cobbled together from various sites, here are the 7 life paths of a scientist that I am going to evaluate:
Overall assumptions:
a. Career (academic or otherwise) starts at 18 and ends at 65.
b. Tax brackets: < $60000, 15%; $60000 - $80000, 20%; >$80000, 25%.
c. Salary increments are performed every year (not for grad positions or postdocs).
Career paths:
1. No university: $0 student loans, starting salary = $30000/year, ending salary = $60000/year.
2. B.Sc. to industry: 5-year degree, $50000 student loans, starting salary = $45000/year (this is actually what I was offered out of undergrad), ending salary = $100000/year.
3. Ph.D. to industry: 5-year B.Sc. + 6-year Ph.D., $100000 student loans (as per my situation - I was 'fully funded' at $20000/year), Ph.D. salary = $20000/year, starting industry salary = $60000, ending industry salary = $120000/year.
4. Ph.D. + 3-year postdoc to industry: As above, except 3 years of earning in industry are lost to $40000/year postdoc salary (NIH standard level).
5. Ph.D. + 5-year postdoc to professorship: starting professor salary = $80000/year, ending = $120000/year.
6. Ph.D. + 10-year postdoc to professorship: As above, but 5 more years are lost to postdoc wages.
7. B.Sc. + M.D. + residency to medical doctor: $200000 student loans, 5-year B.Sc + 4-year M.D. (assuming no money is made although this isn't true due to clerkships) + 5-year residency @ 75000/year. Starting professional salary = $150000, ending = $250000.
And the winner is: M.D.
No surprise there; I really just put that in for comparison. Second place goes to "Ph.D to industry". Here is the final cumulative lifetime earnings (net after taxes, and minus student loans, in millions of dollars):
1. M.D. - $5.2
2. Ph.D. to industry - $2.56
3. Ph.D. + 5-year postdoc to professorship - $2.52
4. B.Sc. to industry - $2.39
5. Ph.D. + 3-year postdoc to industry - $2.36
6. Ph.D. + 10-year postdoc to professorship - $2.29
7. No university - $1.84.
So what is the moral of the story? Besides the obvious fact that students shouldn't overlook the M.D. route, a Ph.D.'s earnings are maximized if they can obtain industry employment immediately following their grad degree, and having a Ph.D does not give you that much more in lifetime earnings compared to only a B.Sc. (a difference of ~$150000). The overall cumulative earnings decline depending on the number of postdoc years you have under your belt before going to industry. In essence, you lose the difference between a postdoc salary and the high-end (near $120000) salaries that you would make if you would have cut to industry straight after the Ph.D.
In terms of these earnings, a professorship is not a bad option, but this analysis does not include the probability of securing this position. In life sciences in 2011, only 15% of Ph.D. grads held secure, tenure-track positions 5-years following Ph.D. graduation. Not to mention that attrition rates in grad programs are ~30-40%. So, if you are starting a grad program today, you have about an 8% chance of having a professorship after 5 years of postdoc. I don't think anyone would choose this path if they actually heard numbers like this. 8% is quite the lottery for a job that you are supposed to be training for. I can't think of any other occupation that has such a bleak outlook (apart from other Ph.D. grads). You would be better off picking anything but the professor route. So, if professorships are not on the menu, then it is not necessary to go to grad school for training, so you might as well cut out after the B.Sc. as you would make about the same anyway as a Ph.D. grad.
Another thing that isn't mentioned is the relatively poor quality of life for grad students and postdocs - do you want to be spending your younger years sacrificing and worrying about living expenses for the sake of having more earning power when you are closer to 65? I truly think it is a very good option to enjoy life early and forget about grad school altogether.
For me, I am in my 5th year of postdoc, with no tenure-track positions in sight. In terms of the numbers, I would be better off now even waiting a couple of more years (up to 8) until I find a professorship, as each year that passes as a postdoc decreases what I can make in industry. It isn't so much of choosing which way I want to go because of the money I can make - right now it is solely based on what jobs are available. This past year, out of ~80 applications to industry and ~15 to academia, I had 3 interviews (all industry). Out of the 3, I got to the on-site stage for one, and didn't get past the phone interview for another. For the third one I have had a phone interview so far, and I am waiting for feedback. 3 interviews in one year really sucks, because when one finally comes around, it is so stressful to think that the next one won't be for another 4 months or so, so if I blow it...
Anyway, the point is: There is no reason to go to grad school. Let the white-hairs figure out how they can populate the professorship ranks with B.Sc. graduates, say no to Ph.D.s and postdocs, and think long and hard about professional degree routes.
I welcome your comments and criticisms.
In trying to stick to logical arguments as I have brought up in previous posts, this entry is a way of proving (albeit in a hand-wavy sort of way) why someone should not go to grad school based on cumulative earning power in a person's life. I have seen this argument before, and it is typically used to show that getting a university degree is a good investment in the long run financially. So, with some information I have cobbled together from various sites, here are the 7 life paths of a scientist that I am going to evaluate:
Overall assumptions:
a. Career (academic or otherwise) starts at 18 and ends at 65.
b. Tax brackets: < $60000, 15%; $60000 - $80000, 20%; >$80000, 25%.
c. Salary increments are performed every year (not for grad positions or postdocs).
Career paths:
1. No university: $0 student loans, starting salary = $30000/year, ending salary = $60000/year.
2. B.Sc. to industry: 5-year degree, $50000 student loans, starting salary = $45000/year (this is actually what I was offered out of undergrad), ending salary = $100000/year.
3. Ph.D. to industry: 5-year B.Sc. + 6-year Ph.D., $100000 student loans (as per my situation - I was 'fully funded' at $20000/year), Ph.D. salary = $20000/year, starting industry salary = $60000, ending industry salary = $120000/year.
4. Ph.D. + 3-year postdoc to industry: As above, except 3 years of earning in industry are lost to $40000/year postdoc salary (NIH standard level).
5. Ph.D. + 5-year postdoc to professorship: starting professor salary = $80000/year, ending = $120000/year.
6. Ph.D. + 10-year postdoc to professorship: As above, but 5 more years are lost to postdoc wages.
7. B.Sc. + M.D. + residency to medical doctor: $200000 student loans, 5-year B.Sc + 4-year M.D. (assuming no money is made although this isn't true due to clerkships) + 5-year residency @ 75000/year. Starting professional salary = $150000, ending = $250000.
And the winner is: M.D.
No surprise there; I really just put that in for comparison. Second place goes to "Ph.D to industry". Here is the final cumulative lifetime earnings (net after taxes, and minus student loans, in millions of dollars):
1. M.D. - $5.2
2. Ph.D. to industry - $2.56
3. Ph.D. + 5-year postdoc to professorship - $2.52
4. B.Sc. to industry - $2.39
5. Ph.D. + 3-year postdoc to industry - $2.36
6. Ph.D. + 10-year postdoc to professorship - $2.29
7. No university - $1.84.
So what is the moral of the story? Besides the obvious fact that students shouldn't overlook the M.D. route, a Ph.D.'s earnings are maximized if they can obtain industry employment immediately following their grad degree, and having a Ph.D does not give you that much more in lifetime earnings compared to only a B.Sc. (a difference of ~$150000). The overall cumulative earnings decline depending on the number of postdoc years you have under your belt before going to industry. In essence, you lose the difference between a postdoc salary and the high-end (near $120000) salaries that you would make if you would have cut to industry straight after the Ph.D.
In terms of these earnings, a professorship is not a bad option, but this analysis does not include the probability of securing this position. In life sciences in 2011, only 15% of Ph.D. grads held secure, tenure-track positions 5-years following Ph.D. graduation. Not to mention that attrition rates in grad programs are ~30-40%. So, if you are starting a grad program today, you have about an 8% chance of having a professorship after 5 years of postdoc. I don't think anyone would choose this path if they actually heard numbers like this. 8% is quite the lottery for a job that you are supposed to be training for. I can't think of any other occupation that has such a bleak outlook (apart from other Ph.D. grads). You would be better off picking anything but the professor route. So, if professorships are not on the menu, then it is not necessary to go to grad school for training, so you might as well cut out after the B.Sc. as you would make about the same anyway as a Ph.D. grad.
Another thing that isn't mentioned is the relatively poor quality of life for grad students and postdocs - do you want to be spending your younger years sacrificing and worrying about living expenses for the sake of having more earning power when you are closer to 65? I truly think it is a very good option to enjoy life early and forget about grad school altogether.
For me, I am in my 5th year of postdoc, with no tenure-track positions in sight. In terms of the numbers, I would be better off now even waiting a couple of more years (up to 8) until I find a professorship, as each year that passes as a postdoc decreases what I can make in industry. It isn't so much of choosing which way I want to go because of the money I can make - right now it is solely based on what jobs are available. This past year, out of ~80 applications to industry and ~15 to academia, I had 3 interviews (all industry). Out of the 3, I got to the on-site stage for one, and didn't get past the phone interview for another. For the third one I have had a phone interview so far, and I am waiting for feedback. 3 interviews in one year really sucks, because when one finally comes around, it is so stressful to think that the next one won't be for another 4 months or so, so if I blow it...
Anyway, the point is: There is no reason to go to grad school. Let the white-hairs figure out how they can populate the professorship ranks with B.Sc. graduates, say no to Ph.D.s and postdocs, and think long and hard about professional degree routes.
I welcome your comments and criticisms.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Publishing
Good science or politics?
I have recently been having an inner debate about writing papers for scholarly journals at this point in my career. Let us assume that I am talking from the standpoint that I would like to become a professor in the future. As a postdoc, publishing papers is the main metric used to determine your scientific prowess. Of course, there are other things like grant writing and institution/PI prestige, but the first thing used to judge a postdoc is the papers on their CV. Getting papers published is the only thing (let's forget about grants for now) that gives a postdoc any kind of tangible credit.
First of all, let me define what I personally believe entitles someone to being included as an author on a manuscript:
1. Direct writing of the paper
2. Idea conception
3. Performing experimental work involved in obtaining the data for the paper
4. The PI (that's the reason I have a job and it is their lab).
5. Finally, if I have had many discussions with someone encompassing many aspects of the field I am working in and the discussions help to bring new things to light or broaden my knowledge, then I believe that person is entitled to credit by being included on a paper.
A couple things have come to light during the past few years of my postdoc career:
1. Is there value in helping other people with their projects?
Short answer: No.
During my Ph.D. and most of my postdoc, I generally would help grad students and other researchers with concepts or methods that I had developed or with which I had more expertise. This could mean anywhere from reading over and editing a paper (half a day or more) to tailoring a specific method to work for that person's project (on the order of weeks). I think I was a generally nice person and I didn't mind helping, and also I assumed that doing work for someone else meant that I would be included as an author. As I have found out, many people do not share my views of authorship, and I can think of 4 papers in the last two years that I have contributed significantly to in which I have not been given credit. Recently, as I started my 'new' postdoc (about a year ago), I took up the role of 'second-in-command' of my PI's lab, and that meant helping grad students and undergrads with their projects. Naturally, because I helped them, I should get some kind of credit for it (i.e. included as an author) right? But it didn't happen. The fact is, I am not the PI, so I shouldn't be bothered to help with these projects that don't directly involve me. I'm not supervising these people anyway.
Getting burned multiple times is no fun, and subsequently I have turned down many opportunities to help other people in the lab. Is this healthy?
2. How much emphasis should be placed on writing papers that have significant impact, are interesting, and are all-around considered 'good science'?
Short answer: Not much.
As a postdoc trying to build a CV, you need to get credit for absolutely everything that has worked out. I have often heard in our lab, "Just do the simple thing that you know will work out so you can get it published." That means that interesting work that might actually be useful but takes substantial effort is not undertaken because it would amount to only one good, solid paper as opposed to three or four papers based on 'simple' approaches. This is the political argument. A postdoc needs many papers, and so they should manipulate the system in any way possible by doing the smallest amount of work to get the most amount of papers. There have also been many times in the lab that a friend (or significant other) of the author is included - for no other reason. It used to make me quite mad when this happened. And now I am starting to think, "Why not?" If you can get your name on something that easily, then go for it.
It's all so bizarre. I have gone from someone who was generally helpful to someone who dodges students/other researchers around the office in an effort to keep my time focused on my project and not to dilute it with other people's problems (doesn't that sound awful?). I have swallowed the political pill - trying to squeak out another paper from the least amount of work. This means I am not pursuing things that I find interesting, or that the field as a whole would find interesting. Don't misunderstand me, I have known for quite some time that my work is not 'important' to the general public or to the field for that matter, as I think most reasonable researchers find out at some time or another while they are submitting papers to obscure journals that no one reads. If, by chance, I do any kind of work for someone else, it is with the caveat that if there is an outcome to their project (i.e. a paper) that I will be included as an author.
As I write this, it seems that I have been turned into some kind of devil, an asshole, if you will, that avoids human interaction for fear that my precious time and efforts will not be given credit. Now we add my affection towards being done with a postdoc career (and academia altogether) and what do you get? I feel as though I am living someone else's life. That my personality has been irreparably changed. It's a bit scary.
I have recently been having an inner debate about writing papers for scholarly journals at this point in my career. Let us assume that I am talking from the standpoint that I would like to become a professor in the future. As a postdoc, publishing papers is the main metric used to determine your scientific prowess. Of course, there are other things like grant writing and institution/PI prestige, but the first thing used to judge a postdoc is the papers on their CV. Getting papers published is the only thing (let's forget about grants for now) that gives a postdoc any kind of tangible credit.
First of all, let me define what I personally believe entitles someone to being included as an author on a manuscript:
1. Direct writing of the paper
2. Idea conception
3. Performing experimental work involved in obtaining the data for the paper
4. The PI (that's the reason I have a job and it is their lab).
5. Finally, if I have had many discussions with someone encompassing many aspects of the field I am working in and the discussions help to bring new things to light or broaden my knowledge, then I believe that person is entitled to credit by being included on a paper.
A couple things have come to light during the past few years of my postdoc career:
1. Is there value in helping other people with their projects?
Short answer: No.
During my Ph.D. and most of my postdoc, I generally would help grad students and other researchers with concepts or methods that I had developed or with which I had more expertise. This could mean anywhere from reading over and editing a paper (half a day or more) to tailoring a specific method to work for that person's project (on the order of weeks). I think I was a generally nice person and I didn't mind helping, and also I assumed that doing work for someone else meant that I would be included as an author. As I have found out, many people do not share my views of authorship, and I can think of 4 papers in the last two years that I have contributed significantly to in which I have not been given credit. Recently, as I started my 'new' postdoc (about a year ago), I took up the role of 'second-in-command' of my PI's lab, and that meant helping grad students and undergrads with their projects. Naturally, because I helped them, I should get some kind of credit for it (i.e. included as an author) right? But it didn't happen. The fact is, I am not the PI, so I shouldn't be bothered to help with these projects that don't directly involve me. I'm not supervising these people anyway.
Getting burned multiple times is no fun, and subsequently I have turned down many opportunities to help other people in the lab. Is this healthy?
2. How much emphasis should be placed on writing papers that have significant impact, are interesting, and are all-around considered 'good science'?
Short answer: Not much.
As a postdoc trying to build a CV, you need to get credit for absolutely everything that has worked out. I have often heard in our lab, "Just do the simple thing that you know will work out so you can get it published." That means that interesting work that might actually be useful but takes substantial effort is not undertaken because it would amount to only one good, solid paper as opposed to three or four papers based on 'simple' approaches. This is the political argument. A postdoc needs many papers, and so they should manipulate the system in any way possible by doing the smallest amount of work to get the most amount of papers. There have also been many times in the lab that a friend (or significant other) of the author is included - for no other reason. It used to make me quite mad when this happened. And now I am starting to think, "Why not?" If you can get your name on something that easily, then go for it.
It's all so bizarre. I have gone from someone who was generally helpful to someone who dodges students/other researchers around the office in an effort to keep my time focused on my project and not to dilute it with other people's problems (doesn't that sound awful?). I have swallowed the political pill - trying to squeak out another paper from the least amount of work. This means I am not pursuing things that I find interesting, or that the field as a whole would find interesting. Don't misunderstand me, I have known for quite some time that my work is not 'important' to the general public or to the field for that matter, as I think most reasonable researchers find out at some time or another while they are submitting papers to obscure journals that no one reads. If, by chance, I do any kind of work for someone else, it is with the caveat that if there is an outcome to their project (i.e. a paper) that I will be included as an author.
As I write this, it seems that I have been turned into some kind of devil, an asshole, if you will, that avoids human interaction for fear that my precious time and efforts will not be given credit. Now we add my affection towards being done with a postdoc career (and academia altogether) and what do you get? I feel as though I am living someone else's life. That my personality has been irreparably changed. It's a bit scary.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
New considerations
Here are some recent ramblings, exploring my thoughts, from a five-year (going on six) postdoc (I apologize in advance):
It has been almost a year since I started to apply to non-academic jobs. I got a bit frustrated in the last while with my lack of success, and I only sent off one application in the past three months.
So, I evaluated things some more, and I came to the realization that I need to keep all my applications restricted to the industry in which I have some training. I won't be sending out any of those long-shot applications, and even though jobs only come up maybe once or twice per month in this particular niche, at least I can be confident that I have some of the things the employers might want. Plus, it is a lot less work doing 2 applications per month than 20 - namely cover letter/resume tailoring and research of the potential company and position. I still know that I hardly have any chance even in my field, which is still depressing. At any rate, I submitted 3 applications so far this month, and one of them is for a professorship. Oops. I am not sure how that slipped in there, but the bleak market for jobs makes any job (professorship or not) in my field semi-attractive. Or maybe not. I think part of it is I just want to be successful and get an offer - to finally get to the end of a job process. Do you know what I mean? Even if that means a job in academia - maybe I can actually get an offer?
Stupid academia.
There is still the option of staying where I am at and continuing ad nauseum in a never-ending postdoc role, with the caveat that I secure the necessary funding for my position. But the pay sucks. What I mean to say is: the pay sucks. Did I say that already? Well it does. Is it possible to actually be a 'career postdoc', or a 'professional postdoc'? Is that actually a career? How long can someone stay a postdoc? Any postdoc lifers out there?
It's not sustainable. I still think at some point it needs to change, and I know that I need to do some sort of applying, to academic jobs or otherwise, in order to produce that change. And so, I suppose I will continue down the application road, albeit at a much slower pace.
There is also something about just applying that I think is good. I have applied to so many jobs in the past year that I am immune (not really) to rejection. Therefore, the point of applying now for me is to keep hope alive; I can continue to hope that one of the applications might actually turn out. And if I get rejected? (Or forgotten, I should say, as most of the time I don't even get any notice). Well, I guess I am assuming before I hit the 'submit' button that it will be rejected.
But at the same time... is there hope still there, somewhere inside my silly self? Hope and academia are quite similar in many ways. They tease you. They make you feel better than you are (at times). They both lead you down roads that probably will not pay off in the end.
I have a new best friend... logic. I'll try to frame my mind solely on logic.
It has been almost a year since I started to apply to non-academic jobs. I got a bit frustrated in the last while with my lack of success, and I only sent off one application in the past three months.
So, I evaluated things some more, and I came to the realization that I need to keep all my applications restricted to the industry in which I have some training. I won't be sending out any of those long-shot applications, and even though jobs only come up maybe once or twice per month in this particular niche, at least I can be confident that I have some of the things the employers might want. Plus, it is a lot less work doing 2 applications per month than 20 - namely cover letter/resume tailoring and research of the potential company and position. I still know that I hardly have any chance even in my field, which is still depressing. At any rate, I submitted 3 applications so far this month, and one of them is for a professorship. Oops. I am not sure how that slipped in there, but the bleak market for jobs makes any job (professorship or not) in my field semi-attractive. Or maybe not. I think part of it is I just want to be successful and get an offer - to finally get to the end of a job process. Do you know what I mean? Even if that means a job in academia - maybe I can actually get an offer?
Stupid academia.
There is still the option of staying where I am at and continuing ad nauseum in a never-ending postdoc role, with the caveat that I secure the necessary funding for my position. But the pay sucks. What I mean to say is: the pay sucks. Did I say that already? Well it does. Is it possible to actually be a 'career postdoc', or a 'professional postdoc'? Is that actually a career? How long can someone stay a postdoc? Any postdoc lifers out there?
It's not sustainable. I still think at some point it needs to change, and I know that I need to do some sort of applying, to academic jobs or otherwise, in order to produce that change. And so, I suppose I will continue down the application road, albeit at a much slower pace.
There is also something about just applying that I think is good. I have applied to so many jobs in the past year that I am immune (not really) to rejection. Therefore, the point of applying now for me is to keep hope alive; I can continue to hope that one of the applications might actually turn out. And if I get rejected? (Or forgotten, I should say, as most of the time I don't even get any notice). Well, I guess I am assuming before I hit the 'submit' button that it will be rejected.
But at the same time... is there hope still there, somewhere inside my silly self? Hope and academia are quite similar in many ways. They tease you. They make you feel better than you are (at times). They both lead you down roads that probably will not pay off in the end.
I have a new best friend... logic. I'll try to frame my mind solely on logic.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
And...?
Unfortunately, the theme of my last post remains. I submitted only one application in the last three months. Apparently, I had an 'in' - I already knew four or five people working there (some relatively well), I had all of the qualifications listed in the ad, and it was an industrial position for something I am trained in. (Ok, the only thing I am formally trained in!) I did manage to get a phone interview, and it seemed to go quite well, but I didn't make the shortlist for the on-site interviews. It was kind of strange; I was quite confident I would at least get to the next step.
At this point, it still feels as though I am heavily under-utilized in what I am currently doing as a postdoc. I am not sure how to explain it, but it just feels like this particular path was not meant to be, in addition to the lack of any jobs out there. I am positive I still enjoy science - that is for sure. But when I begin to examine myself seriously, I almost find it comical that I ended up where I am. The things I do well and correctly are either unnoticeable by my superiors/colleagues, or they just get stolen - in the academic sense - and bastardized into another project. I find it incredibly frustrating how minor tasks unfold so slowly, with tiny improvements (<~5%) being the only outcome.
Anyway, in terms of a different career, I am pretty sure there isn't one, and I suppose it is just a matter of accepting the cards I was dealt (if that is possible). Remember back in high school, when the world was your oyster, and you could do anything you wanted? Remember how difficult it was to make a decision to go down a particular path because there were so many from which to choose? In a sense, it seems like only yesterday as I haven't accomplished much (outside the 'meaningless' academic world) during those fifteen years, but it is also incredibly distant - like some kind of fantasy world fading from my memory.
Well, another year is upon us.
At this point, it still feels as though I am heavily under-utilized in what I am currently doing as a postdoc. I am not sure how to explain it, but it just feels like this particular path was not meant to be, in addition to the lack of any jobs out there. I am positive I still enjoy science - that is for sure. But when I begin to examine myself seriously, I almost find it comical that I ended up where I am. The things I do well and correctly are either unnoticeable by my superiors/colleagues, or they just get stolen - in the academic sense - and bastardized into another project. I find it incredibly frustrating how minor tasks unfold so slowly, with tiny improvements (<~5%) being the only outcome.
Anyway, in terms of a different career, I am pretty sure there isn't one, and I suppose it is just a matter of accepting the cards I was dealt (if that is possible). Remember back in high school, when the world was your oyster, and you could do anything you wanted? Remember how difficult it was to make a decision to go down a particular path because there were so many from which to choose? In a sense, it seems like only yesterday as I haven't accomplished much (outside the 'meaningless' academic world) during those fifteen years, but it is also incredibly distant - like some kind of fantasy world fading from my memory.
Well, another year is upon us.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Still on a break
There's nothing really to update. 80 job applications - some have been a stretch (maybe 50%), but the rest I have all the qualifications needed. No success.
I've quit looking. No more job ads, no more tailoring resumes and cover letters. No more getting excited about possible jobs that might be interesting, which means no more emotional roller coaster.
If something lands in my lap, so be it, but I am apparently not cut out for academia or non-academia. I occupy the void between two worlds, with the days passing endlessly via a mundane routine.
I was trained in science, and at one time I relished solving physical problems, but all that is tainted now. Nothing left but a piece of ordinary paper framed in mahogany, never-ending existence in no-man's land, and the loss of my last friend... hope.
I've quit looking. No more job ads, no more tailoring resumes and cover letters. No more getting excited about possible jobs that might be interesting, which means no more emotional roller coaster.
If something lands in my lap, so be it, but I am apparently not cut out for academia or non-academia. I occupy the void between two worlds, with the days passing endlessly via a mundane routine.
I was trained in science, and at one time I relished solving physical problems, but all that is tainted now. Nothing left but a piece of ordinary paper framed in mahogany, never-ending existence in no-man's land, and the loss of my last friend... hope.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Time for a break...
Since I started formally counting, I have submitted 45 non-academic job applications. I thought I would give everyone a breakdown of the statistics regarding number of interviews and job offers. As I am fond of numbers, I will try to provide the technical analysis at a basic level. I truly hope it doesn't water down the results, and I can provide the comprehensive analysis if requested. So here it is:
Number of applications: 45
Number of in-person interviews: 0
Number of phone interviews: 0
Number of phone interviews for jobs I didn't apply for: 1*
So, I think the stats say it quite clearly, and the sample size is not too bad. First off, I should stop applying for jobs. Secondly, if I stop applying for jobs (at least those I believe I am remotely qualified for), then the number of requested interviews increases dramatically. In total, if I do nothing then I am bound to receive more interviews than if I rigorously apply.
One of the 45 jobs I applied for was a perfect match, even given my academic qualifications. At the time of applying, I was confident I would at least be contacted for a follow-up. There was no way that I wouldn't move to the next step. Alas, I received the email (at least a notification, right?) that I wasn't selected. Another job was a bit of a stretch in terms of qualifications, but I wrote a great cover letter explaining how I could do the job well, and it was in an area relevant to my work. It seemed like the perfect transition out of academia. I even alluded to it in a previous post as 'The perfect job'. Well, I guess you know how that turned out. Sure, a few of my applications were far-fetched, but the majority had strong ties to my qualifications. I feel like I am on the black list.
No more applications for me. What ever happened to fate? Fate is my new best friend. If I am supposed to have a job, then it will just all work out. Ahh... wishful thinking, where have you been all my life?
* Ok, an internal recruiter at one of the companies I applied for gave my application to another internal recruiter in a different branch, and I was severely under-qualified (or over-qualified, don't they mean the same thing?) for the position. The 'interview' was a bit awkward as I tried to explain that I didn't apply for this type of position while at the same time I 'begged' to be considered anyway. So much for pride.
Number of applications: 45
Number of in-person interviews: 0
Number of phone interviews: 0
Number of phone interviews for jobs I didn't apply for: 1*
So, I think the stats say it quite clearly, and the sample size is not too bad. First off, I should stop applying for jobs. Secondly, if I stop applying for jobs (at least those I believe I am remotely qualified for), then the number of requested interviews increases dramatically. In total, if I do nothing then I am bound to receive more interviews than if I rigorously apply.
One of the 45 jobs I applied for was a perfect match, even given my academic qualifications. At the time of applying, I was confident I would at least be contacted for a follow-up. There was no way that I wouldn't move to the next step. Alas, I received the email (at least a notification, right?) that I wasn't selected. Another job was a bit of a stretch in terms of qualifications, but I wrote a great cover letter explaining how I could do the job well, and it was in an area relevant to my work. It seemed like the perfect transition out of academia. I even alluded to it in a previous post as 'The perfect job'. Well, I guess you know how that turned out. Sure, a few of my applications were far-fetched, but the majority had strong ties to my qualifications. I feel like I am on the black list.
No more applications for me. What ever happened to fate? Fate is my new best friend. If I am supposed to have a job, then it will just all work out. Ahh... wishful thinking, where have you been all my life?
* Ok, an internal recruiter at one of the companies I applied for gave my application to another internal recruiter in a different branch, and I was severely under-qualified (or over-qualified, don't they mean the same thing?) for the position. The 'interview' was a bit awkward as I tried to explain that I didn't apply for this type of position while at the same time I 'begged' to be considered anyway. So much for pride.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Headhunters
Would you use them or not? In the academic world, headhunters (or recruiters not based at the hiring company) are never used (to my knowledge), and most of the ads for tenure-track jobs specifically state that recruiters are not welcome. During my non-academic search, quite a few career advice sites recommend using headhunters, and some suggest using more than one at the same time. Unfortunately, it seems the advice to take on a recruiter often stems directly from a quasi-interview with someone employed or attached to the recruiting firm, and consequently I find their direction must be biased. Coming from the academic world, I am leery to try out these recruiters, and I don't know if, given that everything about my leaving academia is supposed to be sort of 'hush-hush', I want my credentials (or lack thereof) to become mass-distributed such that I am labeled a hopeless, saturated case on the job market. I guess I really don't quite understand the entire process, so I suppose I am a bit ignorant. Anyway, as I received the 35th job rejection last week, I am starting to get concerned - I can't even get to step 1 of the selection process! (an interview, even a phone interview would be great). What are your current thoughts about using these agencies?
Friday, April 20, 2012
The Last Straw
A few posts back I mentioned I applied to my 'dream' tenure-track position, and, being as a long time has transpired since the original application, I requested a status update. I am still waiting. But, as it turns out, I found out in a roundabout way that I was not selected for an interview.
The Last Straw. This was the job I had structured my goals around when I first moved 6000 miles away to do my postdoc (the first one, that is), although it never really occurred to me that a position might actually open up in my dream city. But it did. This opportunity signaled the end of the postdoc experience for me and began the process of transitioning into a professorship. I had personal contacts with people there (for more than ten years), I had a decent CV, my research was aligned with the target of the application, and I even met the key players on the committee last summer during an informal interview process. And I applied.
It's a good thing I have been looking into non-academic jobs during the past two months, as it has softened the blow greatly. I already know I am not totally suited for academia - for example, I can't stand reading journal articles or making sure I am completely abreast of new developments and I am more of a short-term goal person. The non-academic job search (although grueling and depressing) and the continued failure of academic applications are good things, which promote delving into oneself to truly understand the situation. When I think about it, and considering there is no longer a tenure-track position there, I really don't want to live in the city I thought was my dream. It is still pretty scary realizing there is no future for me in academia, coupled with the fact that my non-academic search has not produced any results.
Fifteen years and thousands of dollars later, the door to my future career has finally closed. Let's hope I can find my way out in the dark. If only I could find some matches, I could use my diplomas as a torch.
The Last Straw. This was the job I had structured my goals around when I first moved 6000 miles away to do my postdoc (the first one, that is), although it never really occurred to me that a position might actually open up in my dream city. But it did. This opportunity signaled the end of the postdoc experience for me and began the process of transitioning into a professorship. I had personal contacts with people there (for more than ten years), I had a decent CV, my research was aligned with the target of the application, and I even met the key players on the committee last summer during an informal interview process. And I applied.
It's a good thing I have been looking into non-academic jobs during the past two months, as it has softened the blow greatly. I already know I am not totally suited for academia - for example, I can't stand reading journal articles or making sure I am completely abreast of new developments and I am more of a short-term goal person. The non-academic job search (although grueling and depressing) and the continued failure of academic applications are good things, which promote delving into oneself to truly understand the situation. When I think about it, and considering there is no longer a tenure-track position there, I really don't want to live in the city I thought was my dream. It is still pretty scary realizing there is no future for me in academia, coupled with the fact that my non-academic search has not produced any results.
Fifteen years and thousands of dollars later, the door to my future career has finally closed. Let's hope I can find my way out in the dark. If only I could find some matches, I could use my diplomas as a torch.
Monday, April 16, 2012
The perfect job
It appears the perfect non-academic job for me has been posted today. I know, based on reading other's experiences, that the 'perfect job' is not likely to turn out, but in this case, I really hope it does. However, my previous poor track record regarding non-academic applications has me pretty freaked out. I sure hope I can get the points across in my resume and cover letter, and I sure hope the HR department can truly take the time to properly evaluate my application. The competition closes in two weeks, so I will keep everyone posted. Has anyone had any luck with their 'perfect job'?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
When do you let go?
Of a job application, that is. I started steadily applying 2 months ago for non-academic jobs, and I haven't heard anything yet. I am up to 26 in total. It was my understanding that 'regular' jobs take much less time to fill than academic ones. This may still be true, and brings along quite a fright for me - that none of my applications were successful in the least. Sure, many jobs I have applied to have fancy web submission systems that supposedly track the status of your application, but it seems the majority of them are stuck in either the "New application" state or something like "Under Consideration" or "On File". It doesn't make too much sense to me to have a status tracking system that doesn't track actual progress. I already know I submitted my application. My question to those breaking into non-academic jobs is: When do you forget about a certain application, regardless of what submission sites might be saying? Also, how long (approximately) do these jobs take to fill?
// START (rant)
I have been reminded recently of the absolutely terrible standards of academic communication that I have written about before. About six months ago, I had a phone interview for a tenure-track position. So, when I received the rejection (2.5 months ago), I kindly asked (via email) for an evaluation of the interview and what the interviewer thought were my weak points. I suppose I was optimistic, but I still haven't received a response. Is it that difficult to write something back? You don't even need to give me my requested review - just tell me at least that you don't have the time to think about it. Or offer a couple of general remarks. Is it really that hard? I can't stand it. I have also asked about a month ago about the status of my last remaining application for a tenure-track job - a nice, polite follow-up email asking about their current search process. Do you think I got a response? Of course not. Again, how difficult is it to write one sentence, saying either, "You suck, and you weren't selected you moron" or, "We are still making our decisions for interviews." You don't even need to give me a date. Anyway, I have resolved to never leave an email in my inbox that requires a response for more than one day. I won't perpetrate this unprofessional behavior. It's no wonder that academics are regarded as people who can't get regular assignments done in a prompt manner - what are we/they conveying in this first-line of the communication process?
// END (rant)
// START (rant)
I have been reminded recently of the absolutely terrible standards of academic communication that I have written about before. About six months ago, I had a phone interview for a tenure-track position. So, when I received the rejection (2.5 months ago), I kindly asked (via email) for an evaluation of the interview and what the interviewer thought were my weak points. I suppose I was optimistic, but I still haven't received a response. Is it that difficult to write something back? You don't even need to give me my requested review - just tell me at least that you don't have the time to think about it. Or offer a couple of general remarks. Is it really that hard? I can't stand it. I have also asked about a month ago about the status of my last remaining application for a tenure-track job - a nice, polite follow-up email asking about their current search process. Do you think I got a response? Of course not. Again, how difficult is it to write one sentence, saying either, "You suck, and you weren't selected you moron" or, "We are still making our decisions for interviews." You don't even need to give me a date. Anyway, I have resolved to never leave an email in my inbox that requires a response for more than one day. I won't perpetrate this unprofessional behavior. It's no wonder that academics are regarded as people who can't get regular assignments done in a prompt manner - what are we/they conveying in this first-line of the communication process?
// END (rant)
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Skills - I'm not buying it...
Let us suppose I am a medical doctor. Now, for whatever reason, perhaps I am not a very good doctor, or there are no available jobs in the near future, I need to look outside my chosen profession for a new job. Let us also suppose that current hiring is concentrated on a specific industry: construction. It is obvious that my immediate and concrete skills do not align with those needed for a job in construction - I have excellent bedside manner, I am accustomed to dealing with many patients with different ailments simultaneously, I have advanced hand-eye coordination and dexterity needed to perform surgery, and I have in-depth knowledge of medical treatments and procedures. Unfortunately, I have never had the opportunity to swing hammers or pull wrenches, which most of the job advertisements require to a certain extent, or, at least, some past experience in these skills is necessary. Therefore, I must tailor my résumé to highlight the skills I believe are applicable to construction, also known as transferable skills. Additionally, I would rather a position in planning or management of construction projects, primarily because I believe I am entitled to a position above the entry-level ranks, and I also need a decent income to continue to pay down my student debt.
Current job ads list the following necessary requirements for employment:
1. Motivated workers with the ability to complete tasks in a timely manner.
Current job ads list the following necessary requirements for employment:
1. Motivated workers with the ability to complete tasks in a timely manner.
- I have that - I work with multiple patients per day and there are many different evaluations made every day. Though my experience is not in construction projects, it is easy to see that I can manage my time.
2. First-hand knowledge in the construction of buildings and homes, with ample past experience in manual labor using common construction tools and practices.
- Well, I don't have that. I have zero experience in construction. But, I can say I have great hand-eye coordination and dexterity and I can quickly learn how to use these tools. No problems here.
3. Detailed ability to read blueprints and translate into hands-on projects and the ability to prioritize the building process.
- I consult anatomy figures daily - isn't that like reading a blueprint? Sure, the specifications are different, but I have shown I am a fast learner in medical school, so I could easily pick it up. I prioritize multiple projects every day too.
4. First-aid certified.
- Absolutely no problems here. I don't even have to 'twist' my words.
5. Excellent knowledge of construction materials and their particular strengths and weaknesses. Ample experience in wood, ceramics, and concrete mixtures.
- Once again, I don't have this. But I am a quick learner...
One singular problem remains: I have never swung a hammer. And guess what? There are multiple applicants that meet the requirements directly, without the need for serious re-wording of abilities into transferable skills. Consequently, any position requiring any amount of experience will be given to someone else, regardless of my awe-inspiring transferable skills. I am left with entry-level positions, and I am still in fierce competition with those that may have acquired some of the 'true' skills needed on the job. I can only hope that there remains a certain novelty in employing a doctor in the construction industry. Maybe there is a niche job they have that they are not advertising directly. Maybe I can develop a health and safety guide for a particular project. In the end, only hope remains, and I am afraid that hope does not produce tangible employment.
------
I feel I have many things in common with the doctor in the above scenario. I have the equivalent amount of education/training (perhaps even more) and I am most likely more singularly specialized. Therefore, jobs that contain a decent amount of science are possibly in my reach, though I lack any real experience in other science fields and I would be competing with many candidates that would certainly have experience. Jobs outside my discipline, which use business/finance skills, customer relation skills, management skills, etc., seem out of reach.
But wait, I have transferable skills! I can get any job I want in any field that I think I would enjoy! All I have to do is take the concrete skills I have, water them down with euphemisms, and hope that an employer doesn't see me as I truly am behind the veil: an overly mass-produced, specialized cog in the academic machine which is easily replaced by an unceasing line of newer, highly-sophisticated substitutes.
In the end my friend, there is only hope. And at most times, it is fleeting...
Friday, March 30, 2012
Where it all began, Part 6: To the present
The third year of my postdoc passed quietly. Somehow, the original plan to do a two-year postdoc (and let me emphasize, it was a very concrete, inflexible plan when I started) molded into three and a half years. No job offers (or any kind of interview for that matter). No big awards. No signs to guide my way and reinforce that I was on the right track for an academic career. There were six months left on my contract, and I either needed to get some funding on my own or find a new job. It should be pointed out that 'a new job' meant a postdoc or tenure-track position, and nothing else. I had, at this point, realized that my 'career' was unsustainable, but I couldn't open my mind to the possibilities of jobs outside of academia. What did all those people do anyway?
So, I did the unthinkable. I started another postdoc. I didn't have to move; I only needed to change departments at my current institution. The new position ensured more 'applied' work and would give me exposure to a new field - one that was closer to cutting-edge science. This solved all my problems: I had another decent size contract (two years), it still paid better than those in North America, and I didn't have to move. I could continue to do the things I had been trained to do. It seemed no more decisions regarding my future needed to be made.
Just before I started the new position, all the doubts came back. Where am I going with this second postdoc? How did two years turn into six (including the new contract)? Do I keep waiting indefinitely for a professorship to open up while just scraping by and continuing to pay the absolute minimum on my mountain of student loans? I still wasn't desperate in the sense that I would consider any location for a tenure-track position.
And then it happened. The tenure-track position that I had been waiting for opened up in the city I wanted to live in. I immediately forgot all the concerns of the postdoc experience. I remembered why I got into this in the first place. At the same time, I found two other positions in cities that I didn't hate. I applied to all three.
That was six months ago. During that time, I finally (I should never use that word based on how I used it in my mind previously) figured things out. I began to consider long-term scenarios. Three large problems remained when I considered my current position:
1. Money. I hate to say it, but it is a huge factor. Much of the unhappiness in my day-to-day life stems from money (or lack thereof) issues. It was not uncommon to miss payments to credit cards and loans based on my current monthly budget. Also, if any non-budgeted expense popped up (and we all know this happens all the time) it meant that I would have trouble eating for the rest of the month, or that I would miss a payment. To add to the actual money problems, pursuing an academic career (or one that requires the education/training culminating in a Ph.D.) results in a sense of entitlement. Although I try to fight it daily, I am bombarded with thoughts like: 'I have a Ph.D. I worked hard to get here. I should be making a reasonable amount of money because I earned it by doing all this education.' These conceptions are rooted in the meritocracy of academia - if you work hard enough and do enough schooling, you will be rewarded. In total, the money situation needs to change, both by looking for other jobs that could pay more in the end, and also by getting away from thoughts of entitlement in the academic world.
2. Location. I initially thought living in another country would be a life-changing experience. This has turned out to be true. There are many things I enjoy about where I am and I am grateful for having this opportunity. However, I can't picture myself being here long-term. I don't fit in (although I am nearly certain I won't fit in anywhere). I enjoy the traditions, but they are not my own. I have explored what I can. It's a great place to be, but I never considered living here five or ten years in the future. It is not what I pictured for my life.
3. Future prospects: stability and advancement. Theoretically, provided I secure the funding, I can stay in my current institution indefinitely. But, I would never progress past a post-doctoral researcher. I would remain at the same pay grade forever, with no chance of advancement to any higher positions. Do I really want to be a permanent postdoc? It is a bit discouraging to continue to do daily work knowing that: 1) nobody really cares about your research, and 2) even if it is great work, you won't be rewarded for it (apart from the 'rewards' of the academic system - reviewing more papers, presenting at conferences, etc.) When you consider this and include the lack of stability based on available funding, the situation seems bleak.
So, I made a decision: something needs to change. It's disappointing because I truly enjoy my current postdoc work. It is more applied and has real outcomes. Day-to-day work is great. The people are outstanding. But when I think of the three points above, I remember why I need something else. To change means a new job, and because there are no tenure-track positions available (or they don't want me), that means non-academic work.
Now we reach the present month. Four weeks ago, I wrote my first resume in sixteen years, including I template for a cover letter. I started to apply to non-academic jobs, and I limited myself to positions that had a bit of a link with what I am currently doing. Over the last few weeks, the cover letter/resume has evolved considerably, and it is a bit funny to look back on my first attempts. In total, I have applied for 18 non-academic jobs, including one here (although that particular application doesn't fix problem no. 2 above).
And how are things turning out? Not so good so far, but I suppose I should be expecting that. No interviews yet, and two rejections. I am starting to wonder how much the distance factor may be affecting my applications. Why would they take the time to interview someone that has to fly in? Maybe they don't care, I am not sure. It's not like I am asking them to pay for the interview travel (although if it came up, I would definitely ask). I have realized now that in my zeal to get applications out, some of the jobs I applied to are completely uninteresting, and I would be almost relieved to hear they didn't work out. Of course, part of that is my 'comfort' in my present situation. Yes, it is not sustaining, but I know the work, I am trained for it, and I really like what I am doing. What if the next job is horrible and I hate it? The age-old 'I'll take the devil I know' conundrum is now a definite influence. It's a shame, really, that this is what sixteen years of career training has produced: a wandering postdoc, with no future prospects, aimless in a sea bereft of stellar guidance.
What about the three tenure-track positions I applied to? I ended up getting a phone interview for one. They originally wanted to do an on-site interview, but couldn't afford to fly me out (or so they say). A month or so later, they told me I wouldn't be getting another interview. The second application was quicker - I got a rejection email. And the dream job? I am still waiting...
But I have a plan. Something needs to change. If the dream tenure-track job that I applied to turns out, then great! I would be happy to keep on with what I am doing, and I also now have more knowledge about what a professor job would be like. I won't apply to any more professor jobs. This is the last one - the one I have been waiting for. Although it will hurt to move on, I am prepared (and have already started) to find employment outside academia. I am not sure what it will be, or if it will be something I want to do, but something needs to change. I now feel in control (somewhat, anyway) of what I am doing. I am not waiting for professorships or funding. I am looking for a job, plan and simple.
Wish me luck! (I am going to need it - stupid transferable skills). I'll keep posting on my search and any updates, and good luck to those with similar experiences.
So, I did the unthinkable. I started another postdoc. I didn't have to move; I only needed to change departments at my current institution. The new position ensured more 'applied' work and would give me exposure to a new field - one that was closer to cutting-edge science. This solved all my problems: I had another decent size contract (two years), it still paid better than those in North America, and I didn't have to move. I could continue to do the things I had been trained to do. It seemed no more decisions regarding my future needed to be made.
Just before I started the new position, all the doubts came back. Where am I going with this second postdoc? How did two years turn into six (including the new contract)? Do I keep waiting indefinitely for a professorship to open up while just scraping by and continuing to pay the absolute minimum on my mountain of student loans? I still wasn't desperate in the sense that I would consider any location for a tenure-track position.
And then it happened. The tenure-track position that I had been waiting for opened up in the city I wanted to live in. I immediately forgot all the concerns of the postdoc experience. I remembered why I got into this in the first place. At the same time, I found two other positions in cities that I didn't hate. I applied to all three.
That was six months ago. During that time, I finally (I should never use that word based on how I used it in my mind previously) figured things out. I began to consider long-term scenarios. Three large problems remained when I considered my current position:
1. Money. I hate to say it, but it is a huge factor. Much of the unhappiness in my day-to-day life stems from money (or lack thereof) issues. It was not uncommon to miss payments to credit cards and loans based on my current monthly budget. Also, if any non-budgeted expense popped up (and we all know this happens all the time) it meant that I would have trouble eating for the rest of the month, or that I would miss a payment. To add to the actual money problems, pursuing an academic career (or one that requires the education/training culminating in a Ph.D.) results in a sense of entitlement. Although I try to fight it daily, I am bombarded with thoughts like: 'I have a Ph.D. I worked hard to get here. I should be making a reasonable amount of money because I earned it by doing all this education.' These conceptions are rooted in the meritocracy of academia - if you work hard enough and do enough schooling, you will be rewarded. In total, the money situation needs to change, both by looking for other jobs that could pay more in the end, and also by getting away from thoughts of entitlement in the academic world.
2. Location. I initially thought living in another country would be a life-changing experience. This has turned out to be true. There are many things I enjoy about where I am and I am grateful for having this opportunity. However, I can't picture myself being here long-term. I don't fit in (although I am nearly certain I won't fit in anywhere). I enjoy the traditions, but they are not my own. I have explored what I can. It's a great place to be, but I never considered living here five or ten years in the future. It is not what I pictured for my life.
3. Future prospects: stability and advancement. Theoretically, provided I secure the funding, I can stay in my current institution indefinitely. But, I would never progress past a post-doctoral researcher. I would remain at the same pay grade forever, with no chance of advancement to any higher positions. Do I really want to be a permanent postdoc? It is a bit discouraging to continue to do daily work knowing that: 1) nobody really cares about your research, and 2) even if it is great work, you won't be rewarded for it (apart from the 'rewards' of the academic system - reviewing more papers, presenting at conferences, etc.) When you consider this and include the lack of stability based on available funding, the situation seems bleak.
So, I made a decision: something needs to change. It's disappointing because I truly enjoy my current postdoc work. It is more applied and has real outcomes. Day-to-day work is great. The people are outstanding. But when I think of the three points above, I remember why I need something else. To change means a new job, and because there are no tenure-track positions available (or they don't want me), that means non-academic work.
Now we reach the present month. Four weeks ago, I wrote my first resume in sixteen years, including I template for a cover letter. I started to apply to non-academic jobs, and I limited myself to positions that had a bit of a link with what I am currently doing. Over the last few weeks, the cover letter/resume has evolved considerably, and it is a bit funny to look back on my first attempts. In total, I have applied for 18 non-academic jobs, including one here (although that particular application doesn't fix problem no. 2 above).
And how are things turning out? Not so good so far, but I suppose I should be expecting that. No interviews yet, and two rejections. I am starting to wonder how much the distance factor may be affecting my applications. Why would they take the time to interview someone that has to fly in? Maybe they don't care, I am not sure. It's not like I am asking them to pay for the interview travel (although if it came up, I would definitely ask). I have realized now that in my zeal to get applications out, some of the jobs I applied to are completely uninteresting, and I would be almost relieved to hear they didn't work out. Of course, part of that is my 'comfort' in my present situation. Yes, it is not sustaining, but I know the work, I am trained for it, and I really like what I am doing. What if the next job is horrible and I hate it? The age-old 'I'll take the devil I know' conundrum is now a definite influence. It's a shame, really, that this is what sixteen years of career training has produced: a wandering postdoc, with no future prospects, aimless in a sea bereft of stellar guidance.
What about the three tenure-track positions I applied to? I ended up getting a phone interview for one. They originally wanted to do an on-site interview, but couldn't afford to fly me out (or so they say). A month or so later, they told me I wouldn't be getting another interview. The second application was quicker - I got a rejection email. And the dream job? I am still waiting...
But I have a plan. Something needs to change. If the dream tenure-track job that I applied to turns out, then great! I would be happy to keep on with what I am doing, and I also now have more knowledge about what a professor job would be like. I won't apply to any more professor jobs. This is the last one - the one I have been waiting for. Although it will hurt to move on, I am prepared (and have already started) to find employment outside academia. I am not sure what it will be, or if it will be something I want to do, but something needs to change. I now feel in control (somewhat, anyway) of what I am doing. I am not waiting for professorships or funding. I am looking for a job, plan and simple.
Wish me luck! (I am going to need it - stupid transferable skills). I'll keep posting on my search and any updates, and good luck to those with similar experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)