It doesn't make sense to compare the "average" postdoc to Watson or
Pauling and gripe about the salaries of postdocs. Even now there are
(private) reasonably well-paid postdoctoral fellowships which go to a very
small group of highly select postdocs. These are much like the fellowships
which you are claiming were the norm "back then". If you want to make a
comparison between now and the "good old days", think about what many
freshly minted PhDs did in the late 1940's through about 1960. They
became temporary *instructors*, frequently on annual appointments. They
were still expected to publish (if they were to find a tenure track
position) but they had to teach several courses a year in addition. And
the pay was also lousy. Even then, there were plenty who left for
industry as a result, because the pay was better.
************************************************************************
Ellen M. Wijsman Express mail address:
Research Professor 1914 N 34th St., suite 209
Div. of Medical Genetics and Seattle, WA 98103
Dept. Biostatistics (Note: do not mention the
BOX 357720, University of Washington Univ. of Washington, and
Seattle, WA 98195-7720 use this address only for
phone: (206) 543-8987 express mail)
fax: (206) 616-1973 email: wijsman at u.washington.edu
*************************************************************************
On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Bart Janssen wrote:
> Judith Gibber wrote:
>> > My point was that postdocs were never intended as "jobs" at all.
> > They were intended as short-term training periods, accompanied by
> > stipends, which are always lower than the salary a job would pay.
>> Not true, for very many post-doctoral fellows, the fellowship was very
> generous, often tax free, and frequently included benefits such as
> overseas travel. I remember when I was a grad student those people on
> such post-doc fellowships were considered lucky. What has happened in
> the last 15-30 years is that many of those fellowships are now funding
> twice as many post-docs from the same pool of money. Since we've
> already used him as an example Jim Watson was considered a rising star
> before he went to England, thats why he got the fellowship, and remember
> he was the one that was considered the rich American by the local
> scientists (he could afford the beers). At least that's my memory from
> the histories that I have read. I am also pretty sure no one ever
> thought Linus Pauling was anything but brilliant at any stage of his
> career.
>> > In light of this, I found Bart's
> > assumption that "a postdoc should not be and is not a training period"
> >
> > puzzling. It SHOULD be. If it's not working out that way, you should
> >
> > rage, rage against the dying of the traineeship.
>> Doh (sorry that's kind of insulting but tough). I've said several times
> that the point isn't that you don't learn anything during the post-doc,
> of course you do. The point is that having gone through a PhD you are a
> highly skilled and trained scientist already (if you don't believe that
> then try explaining what you do to a cab driver!). As such you should
> be paid for the skills you do have. The fact that you have more to
> learn is irrelevant, every PI has more to learn, every doctor has more
> to learn, every graduate of the bar has more to learn, but all these
> people are still paid for what they already know at the same time as
> they continue to learn.
>> To call a post-doctoral scientist a trainee or a student is insulting.
> It is also self serving propganda. If I call you a trainee or a student
> (in spite of your experience) then it's OK for me to pay you this
> salary.
>> > > What I think we all find so appalling is that we are expected
> > to
> > > continue to train and train with so little MONEY!
> >
> > I'm right behind you on that. It's awful that the scientific
> > enterprise
> > is in such a state that people are compelled to spend years as
> > low-paid
> > postdocs because there are too few jobs available. I just think that
> > some
> > historical perspective on how the situation developed would be useful,
> >
> > and might help direct efforts to try to remedy it.
>> You are still not getting the point. A post-doctoral scientist should
> never be paid the kind of salary that they are currently paid, no matter
> how long it is before they get a "real job".
>> Ok deep breath calm down (a bit). I'm sorry. A lot of what I wrote
> above is angry and somewhat rude and for that I apologise (I guess I
> should crawl back into my hole and lurk again). Maybe it's the
> testosterone.
>> cheers
> Bart
>>>>
