The Scientist: NewsBlog:
More money, fewer postdocs
Posted by Megan Scudellari
[Entry posted at 26th April 2010 09:04 PM GMT]
Proposed salary increases have many postdocs waiting eagerly for a bigger check, but in the current economic environment, others are concerned about the potential consequences.
Currently, postdocs receiving federal awards make between $37,740 to $52,068 a year, depending on a fellow's level of experience.
Now, U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed 2011 budget includes a six percent funding increase for these government-funded stipends, or National Research Service Awards (NRSAs), which support more than 17,000 postdoctoral fellows. And since many private institutions use the NRSA stipend scale to determine their own postdoc compensation, the salary bump is likely to have wide-reaching effects. For years, the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) has advocated for a hike in postdoc funding, arguing that NRSA stipends do not cover the basic costs of living for those required to live in expensive cities like Boston, New York City, and San Francisco. A 6 percent increase would average only $2,200 more per year for a first year postdoc, but "it will make a big difference in morale," says Stacy Gelhaus, a fifth year NRSA postdoc at the University of Pennsylvania and chair of the Board of Directors at the NPA. The small increase, however, means that 92 fellowships would be cut nationwide. For some, the loss is negligible. "It's a small percentage compared to thousands of positions," says Cathee Phillips, director of the NPA. Some say the cut is even beneficial. "In my personal opinion, there are too many postdocs," says Gelhaus. "A lot of postdocs are just working as hired hands and aren't really being trained." The proposed increase has incited heated debates on many websites, especially at the DrugMonkey blog at scienceblogs.com. Some suggest that senior postdocs, in their fourth or fifth year of a fellowship, could easily pick of the slack for any fall-off in production due to the loss of first-year trainees. Others worry about consequences for young faculty, who might only be able to afford one postdoc instead of two. Overarching the debate is the discussion of why postdocs should get a bump at a time when the salaries of other positions, including Principal Investigators, lab technicians, and graduate students, are flat-lining. Many scientists are struggling, but it's important to remember that postdocs have not shared regular salary bumps in the past, says Steven Wendell, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, where he was previously assistant director of postdoctoral development in the School of Health Sciences. "I do caution that we have to be sensitive to the current landscape, that there are a lot of faculty, staff, and graduate students that are not getting cost of living increases," he says, "but we shouldn't pass up the opportunity because it's not the ideal time. You have to run with it when it's available." On average, NIH postdoc stipends do lag behind other science funding organizations. At the NSF, for example, postdoctoral stipends range from $45,000 (biology) to $58,000 (earth science) to $75,000 (chemistry). See our recent review of top-paid postdoc positions for more. "I agree it's a training period and we shouldn't be making $85,000 per year," says Gelhaus. But compared to the pay scale of other government jobs, "we're the cheapest labor with the highest terminal degree," she says. But is a salary increase the best solution for a postdoc's woes? Sigma Xi's 2005 postdoc survey, "Doctors without Orders," found that structured oversight and formal training had more influence on overall fellowship satisfaction than salary. It would take a $20,000 increase in salary to have the equivalent impact on job satisfaction and productivity as an individual development plan and annual review process, the study found. And those are relatively cost free options, says Wendell. "If you're talking about bang for your buck, stipend increases are not a panacea," he says. Are salaries on your mind? Take our 2010 salary survey, and we'll compile results in time for your year-end reviews. Clarification (April 27): When originally posted, the article used the word 'lobby' in reference to the NPA. However, the organization is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, for which there are restrictions regarding lobbying. The word choice was the author's. Related stories: [1st September 2006] [15th April 2010] [1st March 2010] |
Rate this article
fewer postdocs
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2010-05-26 09:45:24]
[Comment posted 2010-05-26 09:45:24]
Highly trained scientists take postdoc positions for two reasons. The first one is to get trained by a different mentor and in a different area to broaden their background. The second one is they could not find any other job and take postdoc as a last resort. For the first group, the stipend is not a significant factor. For the second group, the stipend is too high because they do not have sufficient interest in scientific research. For the above two reasons, there is no need to modify the postdoc stipend.
However, it is important to raise the stipend significantly, at least by 25%, and reduce the number of postdoc positions. There are two reasons and the first one is that those who are genuinely interested in research need to live at the minimum. Second reason is it reduces the foreign postdocs and increase competition for the postdoc positions. We do not want to train the foreign scientists but the very best foreign scientists should be allowed for the benefit of science.
I have two children who are postdocs and they did not complain about their stipends.
However, it is important to raise the stipend significantly, at least by 25%, and reduce the number of postdoc positions. There are two reasons and the first one is that those who are genuinely interested in research need to live at the minimum. Second reason is it reduces the foreign postdocs and increase competition for the postdoc positions. We do not want to train the foreign scientists but the very best foreign scientists should be allowed for the benefit of science.
I have two children who are postdocs and they did not complain about their stipends.
Money breeds complacency.
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2010-05-20 12:02:32]
[Comment posted 2010-05-20 12:02:32]
As a postdoc I do not think it is a good idea to raise salaries. People begin to become complacent when increased salaries occur and a postdoc is a training position, not a scientist position in a company or head of lab/faculty position. 4-6 years of grad school allows you understand science, learn the techniques, and develop testable hypotheses on your own. A postdoc is meant to expand on this training and allow one to develop their own research plan so they can transition and head up their own lab or small group in a company. What is next - are we are going to start paying MDs 100K for their residency training? Scientists are not in this for the money and with hard work, dedication, and creativity the salary will come with time.
PDF salary
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2010-04-30 11:41:50]
[Comment posted 2010-04-30 11:41:50]
It is not going to hurt anyone if you make a decent salary while you pursue your passion. It is my opinion that treating post-doctoral positions as training period is not fair just to keep your salary low. I think students get trained during 5 to 6 years of graduate training. If this training is not sufficient, I am not sure what will prepare you for your career in science.
PDF Salary and the passion of science
by ERIC J MURPHY
[Comment posted 2010-04-29 15:04:00]
[Comment posted 2010-04-29 15:04:00]
I'm not sure a complete top-down method should be used, however it is important to note that this is for fellowships, not PDF salaries on grants. In the past, I have started PDF anywhere from $32,000 to $36,000 per year on NIH grant funded positions. However, we offer university housing that is subsidized and my PDF do not spend nearly $1000 to park a car per month like they might in Boston or New York City.
Nonetheless, I am not sure we should base PDF fellowship salaries on Boston or the Bay area. This predisposes that these locations are the only ones where PDF with fellowships live. This is far from the case. Rather it might be better to have PDF from these areas get a slight boost in the amount of the award or alternatively, seek out labs in areas in which their stipends will go a bit further.
In the mid-1990's, with nearly 45 publications to my name and over 8 years of experience after my doctorate, I took a Senior NRC fellowship at the NIH in Bethesda, MD. The pay was far from ideal for a family of four with a single wage earner ($45,000), but we made it work. The experience I gained was worth its weight in gold.
In the end, we don't go into science to make a killing, otherwise we should take our talents and intellect to another sector of the economy. Rather, we do it because we love science and feel that it is absolutely outrageous that someone pays us to have this much fun. This is a passion, not a job. Yeah, maybe a bit old school, but then I have been accused of being a dinosaur anyhow.
Nonetheless, I am not sure we should base PDF fellowship salaries on Boston or the Bay area. This predisposes that these locations are the only ones where PDF with fellowships live. This is far from the case. Rather it might be better to have PDF from these areas get a slight boost in the amount of the award or alternatively, seek out labs in areas in which their stipends will go a bit further.
In the mid-1990's, with nearly 45 publications to my name and over 8 years of experience after my doctorate, I took a Senior NRC fellowship at the NIH in Bethesda, MD. The pay was far from ideal for a family of four with a single wage earner ($45,000), but we made it work. The experience I gained was worth its weight in gold.
In the end, we don't go into science to make a killing, otherwise we should take our talents and intellect to another sector of the economy. Rather, we do it because we love science and feel that it is absolutely outrageous that someone pays us to have this much fun. This is a passion, not a job. Yeah, maybe a bit old school, but then I have been accused of being a dinosaur anyhow.
NONSENSE
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 20:30:26]
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 20:30:26]
Post doctoral experience should be considered an entry-level job as any other (except that we worked more than 40 hour per week). Therefore, the salary it deserved should be evaluated by the academic education and the experienced obtained during previous research experiences. And $38,000 per year is way far from reflecting all the years of previous experiences. For example, a lab technician has an approximate salary between $30,000-$40,000 and only has to obtain a bachelor degree and sometimes do not need previous research experience!!!
Comment on salary
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 12:29:54]
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 12:29:54]
Stipends are good no question, but a professional future could be better
A livable wage
by Suzanne Coberly
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 12:21:57]
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 12:21:57]
Odd that there is so much discussion about why to raise the rates, and how maybe a career plan should be substituted. Sorry, guys, post docs are not paid enough to really live in the Bay Area - they are sort of like well educated almost homeless people, and certainly live close to or below the poverty level for this area. Until you have gotten to a pay level that allows people to have a roof over their head (that doesn't leak), and buy food and gas to get to work without them worrying every night about paying for another day, you should not worry about giving them a pay raise in this or any economic climate. I was a fellow at Stanford for three years, made about 5K more a year than the Ph.Ds (as an MD doing some clinical work), and barely made it- I earned less money than when I was a resident. I lived in a termite infested hole in the wall and borrowed money from my parents, so I know of what I speak. I frankly don't know how any post-doc makes it in places like the Bay Area or Boston.
Maybe the question wrong question is being addressed
by Fred Schaufele
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 12:02:58]
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 12:02:58]
I would like to see a comparison of the NIH post-doctoral payscale over the past 30 years compared to the median national income. My impression is that post-doctoral fellowship rates have been accelerating more, although I also believe that has been addressing a prior wrong.
However, there also is a major difference today that I think many fail to discuss when focussed narrowly on fellowship levels (these are not 'salaries'). Post-doctoral training periods are lasting longer. There are many reasons for this, not limited to:
-we can study more details in a shorter period of time than before, but this also means that the bar for publication, etc, incorporates that one has to produce all that we can do.
-there are too many post-docs for the jobs available so that post-docs stay longer in the post-doc position.
-more post-docs have entered the system when more, higher paying jobs became available in the biotech sector. The increase in the number of post-docs also resulted in a very visible broadening of the lower end of the capabilities and dedication of the overall post-doctoral pool.
I believe that the above issues are related. i.e., the highly capable post-docs are still getting jobs but a larger majority are lingering in the post-doc because of poor research choice and bad luck, as always. But the brutal truth in most cases is that many fellows just do not have the ability or drive to compete effectively against better fellows.
So, what is the response? We should decide what is a reasonable length of time by which a capable post-doc would have completed a project that should allow that person to go out into a job hunt. I propose three years. Anybody in a post-doc position after the third year receives the same level of salary as a third year post-doc. That provides a strong message to the post-doc such as 'this isn't working. I need to change my direction'. It also provides a message to the PI: How valuable is this person to me? If I want to keep him/her, I need to elevate her/him to any of a low number of better career-oriented positions I may have in the lab. If I do not want to do that, then shouldn't I be having a long conversation with the post-doc about his/her career.
In short, it is my perception that the annual increases in the post-doctoral 'salaries' perpetuate the notion that the post-doc is something other than a temporary training program. I also believe that post-docs should be mentored in a much more formal way than they are now, with a faculty committee meeting with them often and providing thoughtful feedback about whether they projects, and productivity, are meshed with their career goals. But that is a totally different conversation.
However, there also is a major difference today that I think many fail to discuss when focussed narrowly on fellowship levels (these are not 'salaries'). Post-doctoral training periods are lasting longer. There are many reasons for this, not limited to:
-we can study more details in a shorter period of time than before, but this also means that the bar for publication, etc, incorporates that one has to produce all that we can do.
-there are too many post-docs for the jobs available so that post-docs stay longer in the post-doc position.
-more post-docs have entered the system when more, higher paying jobs became available in the biotech sector. The increase in the number of post-docs also resulted in a very visible broadening of the lower end of the capabilities and dedication of the overall post-doctoral pool.
I believe that the above issues are related. i.e., the highly capable post-docs are still getting jobs but a larger majority are lingering in the post-doc because of poor research choice and bad luck, as always. But the brutal truth in most cases is that many fellows just do not have the ability or drive to compete effectively against better fellows.
So, what is the response? We should decide what is a reasonable length of time by which a capable post-doc would have completed a project that should allow that person to go out into a job hunt. I propose three years. Anybody in a post-doc position after the third year receives the same level of salary as a third year post-doc. That provides a strong message to the post-doc such as 'this isn't working. I need to change my direction'. It also provides a message to the PI: How valuable is this person to me? If I want to keep him/her, I need to elevate her/him to any of a low number of better career-oriented positions I may have in the lab. If I do not want to do that, then shouldn't I be having a long conversation with the post-doc about his/her career.
In short, it is my perception that the annual increases in the post-doctoral 'salaries' perpetuate the notion that the post-doc is something other than a temporary training program. I also believe that post-docs should be mentored in a much more formal way than they are now, with a faculty committee meeting with them often and providing thoughtful feedback about whether they projects, and productivity, are meshed with their career goals. But that is a totally different conversation.
Too many postdocs anyway
by ROBERT HURST
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 11:23:49]
[Comment posted 2010-04-27 11:23:49]
The profession has too many postdocs, anyway, and probably too many graduate students. With paylines in the range of 10 - 15%, the system has more "trainees" in it than can be reasonably accomodated with real jobs. The comment about new faculty not being able to hire two post-docs struck me emphatically. I believe that few starting assistant professor have any business training postdocs in the first place. This is a job for more senior, experienced faculty.
Comment on this blog