I do not agree with any intent to limit the aspirations of our
students. It is not our decision as academics to tell students "don't
bother, you're not going to ever get a job" any more than it is the job
of a coach to tell his athletes that they are not Olympic or "major
league" material. I think all of us who have worked with graduate
students for some time have seen that many students surprise us - it is
not always easy to predict when they walk in the door where their
maturity level, intellectual ability, and goals will be when they emerge
six years later. I can't always predict where those students will end
up, but what I can say is that nearly all of them had a rewarding
experience and they gained a wide range of skills in the process. My
guess is that if you asked those same individuals if they would do it
again if they had the chance to go back and start over, most all of them
would say yes. The best we can do is to provide a supportive
environment and make our students are aware of the diverse options
available - the rest is up to them.
Mitch
On 2/9/2014 7:34 PM, Michael Garvin wrote:
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
