Speaking as one myself, I can think of few professional careers less likely
to offer long-term stability than ecological modelling. Among ecologists it
is a low-ranking position, one step above being an arsonist, and the
modellers are probably the most expendable and the first to go when funds
get tight. The only thing we have going for us is that we don't require a
lot of expensive lab equipment. Although I think I built a successful career
for myself, it was one hell of a struggle and I had to face a lot of issues
that experimentalists don't.
I think the general attitude is best summed up by a blurb for a course in a
biology department that said, "This course will teach you real ecology, not
modelling".
In fact, I don't understand why we even use the phrase "ecological
modelling". I consider myself a theoretical ecologist and when necessary I
build models. In other fields we have theoretical physicists, theoretical
chemists, theoretical astronomers, but I've never heard anyone referred to
as an "astronomical modeller".
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Withrow" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 9:34 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] From a frustrated Post-Doc
Can anyone else relate to this?
I graduated with my Ph.D. in 2004 with a focus on ecological modeling.
The process of being a post-doc has resulted in my working for FOUR
DIFFERENT COMPANIES in the past five years who contract with the
government.
Finding something permanent is very difficult, as our government appears
to still operate under the Reagan-esqe philosophy that the world operates
best with as few permanent government positions as possible, and the
alternative appears to involve this ongoing stressful process of jumping
from one contractual soft money bubble to another.
Is the promise of a long-term stable career (which greatly drew me through
the struggle of getting a Ph.D.) merely an illusion?
