I am from both theorethical and lab experiments worlds (algal physiological). I've always been more on the modelling side but keeping always an eye on the descriptive world. I am not sure the descriptive world is better. Do zoologists get easily a permanent position ? I don't know.
I've been through the PhD and post-doc world and now after having worked on algal growth, ecosystem modelling, biogeochemical modelling, data visualization methods, the natural conclusion was to get a permanent position as a fish stock assessment scientist. I managed to break the loop of the dead-end post-docs world by selling my skills under a general form rather than being focused on a particular topics. I can tell it's not easy to present your job on physiological algae when you have an interview for a job about guessing the quantity of fish being caught by fishermen. I don't live in the US but I know some governmental positions (NOAA) require quantitative skills like my example on fish stock assessments. NOAA has apparently some troubles filling those positions. It's the same in Europe and for us, the reason is because those jobs appear to be highly specialized and few schools, universities train students for those careers. In practice, I know many people from related disciplines like applied mathematics, ecology working in the fish stock assessment world. I think it's probably better to think a curriculum vitae as a set of particular skills in numerical methods rather than on the field of your thesis / post-docs. Good luck Lionel 2009/5/9 William Silvert <[email protected]>: > 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? >
