Just some corrections about the Brazilian system, mentioned by Aaron. There is no salary component from research grants, but most grad students don't write their own grants either (postdocs do). The grad fellowships are pre-allocated by graduate program, based on the overall performance of said program, according to a few metrics (average graduate time, publications, etc.). When students apply for the program, they are ranked during the selection processes, and the top ranked students usually receive the fellowships (but which student gets the funding or not is decided internally by the program). The best graduate programs will have near 100% student funding ratio, but smaller programs will only be able to fund a few of their students. Sadly, as there is no TAship or grant salary, unfunded students need to find work elsewhere (or be family supported), while doing grad school.
Since the grants are tied to the program, there's no program mobility as mentioned. Graduation times are strongly enforced (2 years for a masters, 4 years for a doctorate*), not just because the grants will only fund you for that long, but also because longer graduation times will lower the program score and reduce their budget and fellowship allocation. Fellowship amounts are usually very low, and a major source of complaint, especially as they have devalued significantly over the years. Until recently you wouldn't be allowed to work while holding a fellowship, but the requirement has been lifted to offset this devaluation (and keep students who would rather work than do grad school otherwise). The above is true for CNPq and CAPES, the two major federal funding agencies. Some state agencies have their own funding programs, with different rules. The São Paulo research foundation is known for paying grads well above the federal rates (with the added work of having to submit quarterly progress reports), and they do require that the student submit a proposal. Still, the selection criteria emphasizes the productivity and track record of the proposed supervisor, so I'm not sure if the fellowship can be kept when switching programs. As for faculty salaries, yes, they are paid in full, regardless of performance (there are some bonuses for performance). But the salary scale is fixed for all faculty of the same rank, regardless of scientific field, or local cost of living, and cannot be negotiated individually, only between the unions and the government**. It has also devalued significantly over the years. The fact that there is no requirement for grant submission takes off the pressure that characterizes the North American system, but does encourage a lot of apathy and indifference towards research, education and the job in general, and the tenure system makes it all but impossible to get rid of truly unproductive faculty. All in all, both systems have their ups and downs, but I wouldn't qualify the Brazilian system as "fantastic" (grass is always greener on the other side, I guess). * Masters followed by PhD is usually the norm. There are mechanisms for converting your masters into a doctorate while in progress, but they are usually limited to the top students. ** Pretty much all research universities in Brazil are government owned, the majority by the federal government, some others by the state government. That means that all faculty are public employees, and are ruled by a single collective agreement and salary scale, nation-wide. State universities will have their own salary scales, usually slightly higher than federal ones, but still fixed for all faculty of the same rank. -- *Dr. Thiago Sanna F. Silva* Postdoctoral Fellow Remote Sensing Division - Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) São José dos Campos, SP - Brazil www.dsr.inpe.br Personal Webpage: www.thiagosilva.wordpress.com https://plus.google.com/101212496230661235420 On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Jane Shevtsov <jane....@gmail.com> wrote: > Again, your mileage may vary. When I wrote my first paper in grad > school, I automatically put my advsor's name on it. He thanked me but > said that he hadn't made enough of a contribution to earn that credit. > Only after he made substantial (albeit sometimes exasperating to me) > contributions to the writing did we put his name on the manuscript. > And all his students had to come up with their own questions -- with > some help if necessary, but their own questions. A few dropped out > because they couldn't do this, but most did well. > > The Brazilian system does sound good, although I'd add university > funding for the first 1-2 years for the coming up with your own > question part. Not everyone will do this well straight out of > undergrad, especially if they're skipping the MS. But yes, having > faculty be fully paid by their universities (what a concept!) will go > a long way toward making my experience a lot more common and the type > that leads to burn-out a lot less common. And it should be possible > for grad students to be PIs. > > Jane Shevtsov > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Aaron T. Dossey <bugoc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Ph.D. students and postdocs "picking their own question" has devolved > into > > institutionalized intellectual property theft. Why do original research > > when you don't get credit or own the IP? Now days many grad students and > > postdocs/postechs/postemps are expected not only to do all of the > > experiments, but to do the ordering for the lab, WRITE GRANTS, write the > > papers and even come up with the ideas. HOWEVER, it is always expected > that > > the faculty boss is senior corresponding author on all papers that their > > students/postdocs/property generate regardless of if those faculty bosses > > had anything to do with it or were even aware it was going on. They also > > must be PI on all grants, again regardless of their involvement in > > formulation, writing or submission of the grant. Most institutions > forbid > > students and postdocs from being PI of any grant they write, so even if > they > > want to pursue their own ideas, they must tack on the name of one of the > > gatekeeper faculty to have the "right" to submit it to federal agencies > for > > funding. THAT is institutionalized intellectual property theft - > similar to > > bribes that people must pay in third world countries to authorities for > > various things. Any scientist should always have an unlimited right to > PI > > their own grants, petition their own government for research funding and > > publish their own work independently if the effort warrants it. > > > > Check out this article: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5940/528.summary > > > > Brazil has a fantastic system, as I understand it. There, federal > research > > grants do NOT contain any salary funding - for faculty, students or > > postdocs. "Trainees" (I use the term very loosely for the sake of > > discussion here) like students and postdocs write for their own > fellowships, > > and faculty are paid their full salaries by the institutions. This > > accomplishes many nice things such as: 1) giving students and postdocs > more > > freedom and control of their careers - if they work for an abusive boss, > > they can take their funding to another lab, 2) prevents faculty from > > obcessing over grants just to get higher salaries, 3) reduces the > incentive > > for faculty to do NOTHING but try to get grants, since their salaries are > > covered.... and it probably means that more scientists can get funding, > > rather than a few faculty oligarchs soaking up all of the grants by > design. > > > > > > > > On 10/17/2012 12:40 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: > >> > >> The author misses the fact that European Ph.D. programs are 3-4 years > >> long because the students do, by and large, work as technicians. There > >> are no classes. There is, in most cases, no opportunity or time to > >> pick your own question (even within a large project), which is really > >> the thing that distinguishes a Ph.D. from an M.S. in my mind. If some > >> countries have programs that work differently, I'm interested in > >> knowing about them, but from what I've read, American programs are > >> better (aside from pay). > >> > >> Jane Shevtsov > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Aaron T. Dossey<bugoc...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Very well written article: > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_09_28/caredit.a1200108 > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. > >>> Biochemistry and Molecular Biology > >>> Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs > >>> Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation > >>> http://allthingsbugs.com/about/people/ > >>> http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs > >>> 1-352-281-3643 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. > > Biochemistry and Molecular Biology > > Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs > > Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation > > http://allthingsbugs.com/about/people/ > > http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs > > 1-352-281-3643 > > > > > > -- > ------------- > Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. > Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA > co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org > > “Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those who > are doing it.” --attributed to Robert Heinlein, George Bernard Shaw > and others >
