Has anyone established that the reduction in open positions is due to a lack of funds? It seems to me that Universities are fairly flush given the increases in tuition and the overhead charges to grants (over 50% in most cases). That alone has been an eye opener as I’ve been writing grants to try and secure my own funding. Where is that money going?
As to some of the other comments: Academia is not the only option. There are jobs at government agencies (although that sector is dead now as well), biotech, non-profits, etc, so getting a Ph.D. in ecology (or genetics in my case) is not a waste of time if you don’t end up in academia. I think the limiting of graduate students produced by professors is already happening - because the grants are drying up to fund the graduate students. It would seem to me to be a more efficient system if you have two tracks - teaching and research, or at least reduce teaching loads for those who’s passion is research. But I’m guessing that has been a topic of discussion in the past. My two cents. Michael Garvin, PhD University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 17101 Point Lena Loop Road Juneau, AK 99801 907-796-5455 mrgar...@alaska.edu On Feb 9, 2014, at 5:51 PM, David Duffy <ddu...@hawaii.edu> wrote: > If we agree that jobs for ecologists are resource limited, and > If we agree that resources are not increasing, > then it follows that ecologists who wish to produce intellectual offspring > (MS and PhD) should produce such offspring in a way that maximizes the > probability that they will be represented in the next generation's career > 'gene pool'. > > If ecologists believe the current job market is competitive, they should > reproduce like albatrosses, maximizing their investment in a very few > highly competitive offspring with a wide array of attractive skills > (K-slection). > If they believe the current job market is essentially a crap shoot, then > they should spawn like salmon, investing little or nothing, with subsequent > massive mortality, and only a few offspring surviving (r-selection) > > The present situation seems to be more salmonid in an albatross environment > with considerable human carnage. What can be done? > > Individuals can look into other fields but that means giving up a dream and > acquiring more debt if they go back to school to retrain. If they stay, > they risk remaining on the outside of academic/professional leks, > opportunistically exploiting irregular and marginal rewards. They can > teach, becoming contingent faculty, a growing national scandal where > untenured faculty with precarious teaching positions may rely on food > stamps to get by. If they have a large debt from student loans, they will > end up taking just about any job that allows them to make their monthly > repayments. > > The long term solution is a ZPG for ecologists: professors should > essentially only reproduce themselves. Some may reply that they need > 'excess' grad students as teaching assistants. In reality these positions > could be filled and better taught by what are now contingent faculty. Make > these better paid, give them a heavier load than one or two classes a > semester and provide five-year contracts that would give them with more > security. Faculty should not admit grad students unless they can be fully > supported by fellowships. > > With fewer degrees each year, agencies might consider increasing the number > of independent post docs that are long enough to be useful (5 years?) to > allow people to develop. Funders should be prepared, if they fund projects > with interns, to fund them at a living wage. Funding agencies should also > support programs that support those in overcrowded fields who wish to > retrain for teaching or health fields. We make a big point of wanting more > people to enter the STEM fields, maybe we need to think more about how to > retain them. > > > > David Duffy > > > > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:57 AM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > >> ---- Kevin Klein <kkl...@mail.ic.edu> wrote: >>> I haven't been able to follow the entire thread but one thing I draw from >>> what I have read is that it is incumbent on those of us who work with >>> students at all stages in their academic careers to also advise them to >>> consider the job market in their chosen disciplines. In so doing, they >>> make more informed decision and they study with eyes open wide on the >>> possibilities open to them at the next stage in their life and career >>> journey. Much easier said than done. It reminds me of two PhD markets >> in >>> recent years. One, where hundreds of applicants vied for the reported 2 >> or >>> 3 job openings that year and second the hundreds of positions open for >> the >>> 2 or 3 PhD candidates graduating each year. Hopefully we advise our >>> students of the job market realities. One place a student might look for >>> this information can be found here. >>> http://www.bls.gov/ooh/occupation-finder.htm >>> >>> >> Hmmm.... . I was an academic biologist for 35+ years, after the time >> spent preparing. I cannot recall a time when there were "hundreds of >> positions open for 2 or 3 Ph.D. candidates graduating each year." I do >> recall a good many times when the opposite was true. >> >> David McNeely >> > > > > -- > > Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit > Botany > University of Hawaii > 3190 Maile Way > Honolulu Hawaii 96822 USA > 1-808-956-8218
