Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -training grad students in teaching and outreach
I wonder if the mixing of teaching and research is causing a lot of these problems? In academia the only position for conducting original research long-term is professor (ostensibly?) but they are also responsible for teaching too (ostensibly?)... I wonder if the enterprise has grown too large and we need to start parsing out the teaching to those who want to do it and are good at it and the research who want to do and are good at that - with some kind of more structured overlap so students can still experience real world research. The overlap I think has become a huge gray area, and sharks feed in gray areas and murky waters - as do opportunists, thus causing a lot of the problems we have been discussing. On 10/23/2012 12:01 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote: I personally do not consider it an opportunity as you put it. I consider it a necessity or requirement you just better do. I have sat on a ton of search committees, and I guarantee you that teaching experience will trump none in every case except maybe a research doctoral school. I'm not sure if that is fair or not, but it is what it is. You can't guarantee yourself an R1 position, but you can at least give yourself a chance at a teaching post if you can show effective teaching at any level. M On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: Although I agree that experience teaching can give one a competitive edge in the ever more tiny faculty job market, and provide other benefits as helping guide one's career priorities, stay fresh with the basics etc BUT: I fear that this emerging trend to give more teaching 'opportunities' to students and postdocs is a thinly veiled method to, like has been done with research, grantwriting and many other things, farm out or pass along undesirable workloads to students and postdocs (ie: distill the faculty job description down to pullet points, keep those with a career benefit and have students and postdocs do those which are left). In fact I generally cringe (literally, often physically) when I see the word opportunity in titles of emails in this list associated with graduate school positions (jobs? really?) and postdoc positions. Funding agencies, accreditation entities, institutions, etc. must watch this VERY CAREFULLY lest it devolve into a pyramid scheme like research has been for some time. On 10/22/2012 7:29 PM, Christa Mulder wrote: Hi All, I would like to comment on the need for training in teaching mentioned in earlier posts in this thread, and the comment below that students often have little opportunity to gain such training or experience. Things are changing rapidly: many universities now offer programs that provide training specifically aimed at graduate students who expect to have teaching (or outreach) be a significant part of their career. This follows from an increasing awareness that providing rigorous training in one aspect (research) and none in another (teaching or generally communicating science) when both are likely to be crucial components of future careers makes as much sense as training pianists to play with their right hand and expect the left hand to follow along at the first concert (this analogy was first provided by Jo Handelsman in her 2003 article Teaching scientists to teach, HHMI bulletin 12:31). For example, at my university we have just submitted the paperwork to have a 12-credit Certificate in Teaching and Outreach aimed at graduate students in the sciences. Students who complete this will have practical training in course development, active learning techniques, evaluative techniques etc., they will have completed an internship (with a mentor faculty member in a college classroom, in a K-12 classroom, or in an informal educational setting such as a museum or visitor's center), and they will have a teaching portfolio, including a teaching philosophy statement based on experience rather than just ideas, that should help them obtain employment. Of course this takes more time initially - but in the long run it probably saves time as the level of frustration in teaching is reduced. And of course it should increase the quality of teaching that undergraduates are exposed to in the next generation. With respect to training in budget management and similar skills: I would strongly encourage graduate students to get together and ask their faculty for skills-based courses. These could be short courses or weekend workshops. It too will save you time in the long run. Good luck to everyone entering the job market. Sincerely, Christa Mulder On 10/22/2012 1:03 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: I've been following this thread with great interest. I've found many of the comments to be on par with my own graduate school experiences. My graduate school experience has been a mixed bag of positive and negative experiences. However, I've found that overall the graduate school experience has not been everything that I hoped it would be. When I
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -training grad students in teaching and outreach
I said in my earlier posting that on faculty search committees at my largely undergraduate teaching-focused university, we specifically look for people who showed an interest in teaching early on; we want people that have actually run lecture courses. We find such people. We're not doing this to make life more difficult for the graduate students of the world, we're doing it because we want to maximize the odds we will hire people who will do a great job teaching our students and also survive our tenure process. Dr. Russell Burke Department of Biology Hofstra University -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Aaron T. Dossey Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 8:55 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -training grad students in teaching and outreach Although I agree that experience teaching can give one a competitive edge in the ever more tiny faculty job market, and provide other benefits as helping guide one's career priorities, stay fresh with the basics etc BUT: I fear that this emerging trend to give more teaching 'opportunities' to students and postdocs is a thinly veiled method to, like has been done with research, grantwriting and many other things, farm out or pass along undesirable workloads to students and postdocs (ie: distill the faculty job description down to pullet points, keep those with a career benefit and have students and postdocs do those which are left). In fact I generally cringe (literally, often physically) when I see the word opportunity in titles of emails in this list associated with graduate school positions (jobs? really?) and postdoc positions. Funding agencies, accreditation entities, institutions, etc. must watch this VERY CAREFULLY lest it devolve into a pyramid scheme like research has been for some time. On 10/22/2012 7:29 PM, Christa Mulder wrote: Hi All, I would like to comment on the need for training in teaching mentioned in earlier posts in this thread, and the comment below that students often have little opportunity to gain such training or experience. Things are changing rapidly: many universities now offer programs that provide training specifically aimed at graduate students who expect to have teaching (or outreach) be a significant part of their career. This follows from an increasing awareness that providing rigorous training in one aspect (research) and none in another (teaching or generally communicating science) when both are likely to be crucial components of future careers makes as much sense as training pianists to play with their right hand and expect the left hand to follow along at the first concert (this analogy was first provided by Jo Handelsman in her 2003 article Teaching scientists to teach, HHMI bulletin 12:31). For example, at my university we have just submitted the paperwork to have a 12-credit Certificate in Teaching and Outreach aimed at graduate students in the sciences. Students who complete this will have practical training in course development, active learning techniques, evaluative techniques etc., they will have completed an internship (with a mentor faculty member in a college classroom, in a K-12 classroom, or in an informal educational setting such as a museum or visitor's center), and they will have a teaching portfolio, including a teaching philosophy statement based on experience rather than just ideas, that should help them obtain employment. Of course this takes more time initially - but in the long run it probably saves time as the level of frustration in teaching is reduced. And of course it should increase the quality of teaching that undergraduates are exposed to in the next generation. With respect to training in budget management and similar skills: I would strongly encourage graduate students to get together and ask their faculty for skills-based courses. These could be short courses or weekend workshops. It too will save you time in the long run. Good luck to everyone entering the job market. Sincerely, Christa Mulder On 10/22/2012 1:03 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: I've been following this thread with great interest. I've found many of the comments to be on par with my own graduate school experiences. My graduate school experience has been a mixed bag of positive and negative experiences. However, I've found that overall the graduate school experience has not been everything that I hoped it would be. When I originally made the decision to go to graduate school I did so because I was interested in pursing an academic career (teaching/research). Personally, I am still on the fence about a research versus teaching position but giving the saturation of the job market the choice may be made for me (at the least at the entry level). However, in many ways I feel
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -training grad students in teaching and outreach
Dossey, one of the greatest strengths of the teaching component of the higher education system in the U.S. is that the people doing the teaching are truly experts in the fields in which they teach. These experts range from full professors through junior faculty members and down to post doctoral fellows and graduate students. But they are teaching subjects that they have a passion for. We do have institutions where teaching exists as a stand alone activity, unrelated to research. Though many of the faculty members teaching in such institutions are devoted, passionate, hard working, and do an excellent job, still, the effort is divorced from research activity, and in order for students in such a program to experience research, they have to be farmed out to research programs. One of the strengths of regional universities that has developed in recent years is greater involvement of their faculty in research, and in particular, greater participation of their students in re! search. Now we just need to get state legislators to recognize the importance of the research activity in these institutions. In my home state of Texas recently faculty are being attacked by the government for being do nothings because their teaching loads don't add up to a forty hour work week when only time in the classroom (contact hours) is considered. Of course, that is posturing for political consumption, but it has a serious impact on these institutions where the typical teaching load for a biology faculty member is three lecture courses with associated laboratories per semester, putting the faculty member in the classroom and teaching laboratory for 15 to 18 hours per week. To divorce teaching from research completely would be akin to sending a young woman who wanted to become the greatest she could be at automobile mechanics to learn from someone who read books about cars, rather than to master mechanics. I do not mean this analogy to demean those who have chosen teaching for their focus, but rather to emphasize that research has an important contribution to make to effective teaching. We just need to get the politicians to understand the connection. A university's contribution to society is the creation and dissemination of knowledge. When the creation and the dissemination are conjoined, the institution is most effective. I realize that my description is an idealized one, and that many paths to success exist. But to try to separate teaching absolutely from research, in my view, would be a serious mistake, damaging to both teaching and research, and to the overall scholarly endeavor. David McNeely Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if the mixing of teaching and research is causing a lot of these problems? In academia the only position for conducting original research long-term is professor (ostensibly?) but they are also responsible for teaching too (ostensibly?)... I wonder if the enterprise has grown too large and we need to start parsing out the teaching to those who want to do it and are good at it and the research who want to do and are good at that - with some kind of more structured overlap so students can still experience real world research. The overlap I think has become a huge gray area, and sharks feed in gray areas and murky waters - as do opportunists, thus causing a lot of the problems we have been discussing. On 10/23/2012 12:01 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote: I personally do not consider it an opportunity as you put it. I consider it a necessity or requirement you just better do. I have sat on a ton of search committees, and I guarantee you that teaching experience will trump none in every case except maybe a research doctoral school. I'm not sure if that is fair or not, but it is what it is. You can't guarantee yourself an R1 position, but you can at least give yourself a chance at a teaching post if you can show effective teaching at any level. M On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: Although I agree that experience teaching can give one a competitive edge in the ever more tiny faculty job market, and provide other benefits as helping guide one's career priorities, stay fresh with the basics etc BUT: I fear that this emerging trend to give more teaching 'opportunities' to students and postdocs is a thinly veiled method to, like has been done with research, grantwriting and many other things, farm out or pass along undesirable workloads to students and postdocs (ie: distill the faculty job description down to pullet points, keep those with a career benefit and have students and postdocs do those which are left). In fact I generally cringe (literally, often physically) when I see the word opportunity in titles of emails in this list associated with graduate school positions (jobs? really?) and postdoc
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -training grad students in teaching and outreach
But many people like both and are good at both. I wouldn't want either a 100% research or a 100% teaching position. I can be flexible about the mix, maybe doing research in the summers, but not about having the opportunity to do both. Jane On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if the mixing of teaching and research is causing a lot of these problems? In academia the only position for conducting original research long-term is professor (ostensibly?) but they are also responsible for teaching too (ostensibly?)... I wonder if the enterprise has grown too large and we need to start parsing out the teaching to those who want to do it and are good at it and the research who want to do and are good at that - with some kind of more structured overlap so students can still experience real world research. The overlap I think has become a huge gray area, and sharks feed in gray areas and murky waters - as do opportunists, thus causing a lot of the problems we have been discussing. On 10/23/2012 12:01 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote: I personally do not consider it an opportunity as you put it. I consider it a necessity or requirement you just better do. I have sat on a ton of search committees, and I guarantee you that teaching experience will trump none in every case except maybe a research doctoral school. I'm not sure if that is fair or not, but it is what it is. You can't guarantee yourself an R1 position, but you can at least give yourself a chance at a teaching post if you can show effective teaching at any level. M On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: Although I agree that experience teaching can give one a competitive edge in the ever more tiny faculty job market, and provide other benefits as helping guide one's career priorities, stay fresh with the basics etc BUT: I fear that this emerging trend to give more teaching 'opportunities' to students and postdocs is a thinly veiled method to, like has been done with research, grantwriting and many other things, farm out or pass along undesirable workloads to students and postdocs (ie: distill the faculty job description down to pullet points, keep those with a career benefit and have students and postdocs do those which are left). In fact I generally cringe (literally, often physically) when I see the word opportunity in titles of emails in this list associated with graduate school positions (jobs? really?) and postdoc positions. Funding agencies, accreditation entities, institutions, etc. must watch this VERY CAREFULLY lest it devolve into a pyramid scheme like research has been for some time. On 10/22/2012 7:29 PM, Christa Mulder wrote: Hi All, I would like to comment on the need for training in teaching mentioned in earlier posts in this thread, and the comment below that students often have little opportunity to gain such training or experience. Things are changing rapidly: many universities now offer programs that provide training specifically aimed at graduate students who expect to have teaching (or outreach) be a significant part of their career. This follows from an increasing awareness that providing rigorous training in one aspect (research) and none in another (teaching or generally communicating science) when both are likely to be crucial components of future careers makes as much sense as training pianists to play with their right hand and expect the left hand to follow along at the first concert (this analogy was first provided by Jo Handelsman in her 2003 article Teaching scientists to teach, HHMI bulletin 12:31). For example, at my university we have just submitted the paperwork to have a 12-credit Certificate in Teaching and Outreach aimed at graduate students in the sciences. Students who complete this will have practical training in course development, active learning techniques, evaluative techniques etc., they will have completed an internship (with a mentor faculty member in a college classroom, in a K-12 classroom, or in an informal educational setting such as a museum or visitor's center), and they will have a teaching portfolio, including a teaching philosophy statement based on experience rather than just ideas, that should help them obtain employment. Of course this takes more time initially - but in the long run it probably saves time as the level of frustration in teaching is reduced. And of course it should increase the quality of teaching that undergraduates are exposed to in the next generation. With respect to training in budget management and similar skills: I would strongly encourage graduate students to get together and ask their faculty for skills-based courses. These could be short courses or weekend workshops. It too will save you time in the long run. Good luck to everyone entering the job market. Sincerely, Christa
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
In my experience, search committees also look for individuals who have published while in graduate school. This usually requires motivation and efforts by both the student and the advisor. I'm very sorry to see that a few folks have had bad experiences in grad school. Many of us had very happy and productive times as graduate students. But I've seen enough over the years to recognize that faults in advisors, or in advisees, or both can result in mediocre to bad outcomes most often for the advisee, but sometimes for the advisor as well. I did, however, want to comment on the statement that When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else (with) a degree. If you intend to pursue an academic career in research, nothing could be further than the truth. In cases where large numbers of recently minted Ph.D.'s or post-docs apply for several jobs in the same field, often the same, relatively few individuals get to short lists and are interviewed across the country. Applicants whose Ph.D. research (and subsequent work) are perceived to have significant, novel implications and be scalable to future endeavors, and fundable by NSF or other agencies or foundations are much more likely to be interviewed and offered jobs. That is what search committees look for. Not that search committees never make mistakes; they do, sometimes egregiously. A Ph.D. gets you in the door to submit an application, but you need excellent research, combined with strong writing and oral presentation skills, ability to think on your feet, and empathy to interact well with students and colleagues, to have a real chance of success at landing a job at first- or second-tier universities. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/18/12, brandi gartland wrote: As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy-exposed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - 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 --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
I have served on many faculty search committees for positions at a largely undergraduate teaching-focused university--the sort of school that hires a large fraction of recent grads and post-docs into tenure-track positions. We specifically look for people who showed an interest in teaching early on, and note that serving as a lab TA and giving guest lectures means little to us. We want people that have actually run lecture courses. Surprisingly, we get a fair number of those, such as people who took over a summer course or a special session course. We also look for people who attended professional workshops in innovative teaching techniques. After that, we look for pubs and grants. We don't need to see a huge amount of either, but we need to see some for a person to make a short list. Dr. Russell Burke Professor Donald E. Axinn Distinguished Professor in Ecology and Conservation Department of Biology Hofstra University 516.463.7272 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Judith S. Weis Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:31 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary In my experience, search committees also look for individuals who have published while in graduate school. This usually requires motivation and efforts by both the student and the advisor. I'm very sorry to see that a few folks have had bad experiences in grad school. Many of us had very happy and productive times as graduate students. But I've seen enough over the years to recognize that faults in advisors, or in advisees, or both can result in mediocre to bad outcomes - most often for the advisee, but sometimes for the advisor as well. I did, however, want to comment on the statement that When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else (with) a degree. If you intend to pursue an academic career in research, nothing could be further than the truth. In cases where large numbers of recently minted Ph.D.'s or post-docs apply for several jobs in the same field, often the same, relatively few individuals get to short lists and are interviewed across the country. Applicants whose Ph.D. research (and subsequent work) are perceived to have significant, novel implications - and be scalable to future endeavors, and fundable by NSF or other agencies or foundations - are much more likely to be interviewed and offered jobs. That is what search committees look for. Not that search committees never make mistakes; they do, sometimes egregiously. A Ph.D. gets you in the door to submit an application, but you need excellent research, combined with strong writing and oral presentation skills, ability to think on your feet, and empathy to interact well with students and colleagues, to have a real chance of success at landing a job at first- or second-tier universities. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/18/12, brandi gartland wrote: As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy- exposed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
The burdens on our graduate students continue to increase over the 30 years I have been in academics. Now our students no only have to publish and get grants they also have to run entire lecture courses and attend professional workshops on teaching (note that both workshops and lecture courses were plural). In addition, many granting agencies are now expecting our graduate students to have broad outreach and mentoring activities. I know we cannot turn back the clock and while I may be a dinosaur, I try to get the small number of grad students that are in my lab to do high quality research and publish that work in top journals (yes plural) and apply for important grants (e.g., NSF-DIG). My experience has been that if they do this they can land an excellent postdoc and then a solid position at a good university. It is true that not all made it to Duke (in fact none did), but at least they typically were successful at garnering tenure track jobs at a range of good places. Walter Carson From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Russell L. Burke [russell.l.bu...@hofstra.edu] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:09 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary I have served on many faculty search committees for positions at a largely undergraduate teaching-focused university--the sort of school that hires a large fraction of recent grads and post-docs into tenure-track positions. We specifically look for people who showed an interest in teaching early on, and note that serving as a lab TA and giving guest lectures means little to us. We want people that have actually run lecture courses. Surprisingly, we get a fair number of those, such as people who took over a summer course or a special session course. We also look for people who attended professional workshops in innovative teaching techniques. After that, we look for pubs and grants. We don't need to see a huge amount of either, but we need to see some for a person to make a short list. Dr. Russell Burke Professor Donald E. Axinn Distinguished Professor in Ecology and Conservation Department of Biology Hofstra University 516.463.7272 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Judith S. Weis Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:31 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary In my experience, search committees also look for individuals who have published while in graduate school. This usually requires motivation and efforts by both the student and the advisor. I'm very sorry to see that a few folks have had bad experiences in grad school. Many of us had very happy and productive times as graduate students. But I've seen enough over the years to recognize that faults in advisors, or in advisees, or both can result in mediocre to bad outcomes - most often for the advisee, but sometimes for the advisor as well. I did, however, want to comment on the statement that When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else (with) a degree. If you intend to pursue an academic career in research, nothing could be further than the truth. In cases where large numbers of recently minted Ph.D.'s or post-docs apply for several jobs in the same field, often the same, relatively few individuals get to short lists and are interviewed across the country. Applicants whose Ph.D. research (and subsequent work) are perceived to have significant, novel implications - and be scalable to future endeavors, and fundable by NSF or other agencies or foundations - are much more likely to be interviewed and offered jobs. That is what search committees look for. Not that search committees never make mistakes; they do, sometimes egregiously. A Ph.D. gets you in the door to submit an application, but you need excellent research, combined with strong writing and oral presentation skills, ability to think on your feet, and empathy to interact well with students and colleagues, to have a real chance of success at landing a job at first- or second-tier universities. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/18/12, brandi gartland wrote: As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
I've been following this thread with great interest. I've found many of the comments to be on par with my own graduate school experiences. My graduate school experience has been a mixed bag of positive and negative experiences. However, I've found that overall the graduate school experience has not been everything that I hoped it would be. When I originally made the decision to go to graduate school I did so because I was interested in pursing an academic career (teaching/research). Personally, I am still on the fence about a research versus teaching position but giving the saturation of the job market the choice may be made for me (at the least at the entry level). However, in many ways I feel that graduate school has not prepared me as well as it could to become a professor. For instance opportunities to gain teaching experience are limited. TA's often do not provide lecture or lesson development opportunities and tend to be structured in advance. Some graduate students seem to enjoy this as it reduces their work load and provides time for research, which is certainly important, but it does seem to reduce opportunities for active engagement in teaching and development of teaching skills by graduate students. I was fortunate to partake in NSF GK-12 program which at least provided some of this experience albeit at the 7th grade level which may count for very little when it comes to acquiring a job. On the flip side looking at research I also find the graduate school experience failing to provide opportunities to help develop the skills I need to do research or one day run my own lab. Reduced library and departmental budgets make ready access to literature and software challenging. Additionally, I've been fortunate enough to write and secure my own fellowships and grants. However, being only a graduate student I am afforded little opportunity to actively engage in the management of those research funds. Managing large grants and fellowship funds seems like a rather useful skill to possess when exiting school with PhD. Instead much of the financial matters take place behind a veil of administration and bureaucracy until one day someone tell you that your out of $$. A former graduate student in the same department as mine once referred to graduate students as the illegal immigrant workforce of the academic world. In many ways I think he is right. Many, but not all, graduate students work tremendously hard and long hours for little pay. Of course the pay doesn't bother me as much as some of the other issues. For one I find the level of healthcare coverage provided to graduate students to be ridiculously poor. I know of many graduate students that have suffered through pain simply because of the poor level of health care coverage or the hassle that low quality health care providers cause with each claim. Additionally, graduate students have very little rights within the university. I've known others and myself who have appealed to the Ombudsum or other intra-university avenues for legal advice and the general consensus is that we graduate students should just grin and bear whatever difficulties we are having with administration, advisors, or other faculty. We are after all ephemeral and if you can just deal with it for another couple years you can go away. It seems that there is an unfair conflict of interest when a graduate students wishes to bring a complaint against a university when the only avenues to do so are a part of the university system itself. It seems in the best interest of the university to protect itself rather than deal with an ephemeral graduate student's issues. Not to focus entirely on the glum. One opportunity graduate school has provided for me is the opportunity to work with a variety of governmental agencies and ngo's on natural resource issues. I've found that experience to extremely rewarding. So much so that I am considering working for an agency or organization such USFWS, USGS, or TNC upon graduating (if any positions exist!). Prior to graduate school I would have never considered a science based management or research position within the government. Whether or not all the time I have dedicated to working on applied natural resource management questions (e.g. reports and consultation) rather than producing copious amounts of publications will come back to haunt me remains to be seen. I will finish by saying that my comments are based primarily on my experience at my institution. Other people have had very different experiences at other institutions and even at my own. Every graduate student has different expectations of what they expect from graduate school. I realize they can't make everyone happy but I do feel that universities could do a little better. Cheers, Tyler L Hicks PhD Student Washington State University - Vancouver E-mail: tyler_hi...@wsu.edu Website: www.thingswithwings.org Back off man, I'm a
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -training grad students in teaching and outreach
Hi All, I would like to comment on the need for training in teaching mentioned in earlier posts in this thread, and the comment below that students often have little opportunity to gain such training or experience. Things are changing rapidly: many universities now offer programs that provide training specifically aimed at graduate students who expect to have teaching (or outreach) be a significant part of their career. This follows from an increasing awareness that providing rigorous training in one aspect (research) and none in another (teaching or generally communicating science) when both are likely to be crucial components of future careers makes as much sense as training pianists to play with their right hand and expect the left hand to follow along at the first concert (this analogy was first provided by Jo Handelsman in her 2003 article Teaching scientists to teach, HHMI bulletin 12:31). For example, at my university we have just submitted the paperwork to have a 12-credit Certificate in Teaching and Outreach aimed at graduate students in the sciences. Students who complete this will have practical training in course development, active learning techniques, evaluative techniques etc., they will have completed an internship (with a mentor faculty member in a college classroom, in a K-12 classroom, or in an informal educational setting such as a museum or visitor's center), and they will have a teaching portfolio, including a teaching philosophy statement based on experience rather than just ideas, that should help them obtain employment. Of course this takes more time initially - but in the long run it probably saves time as the level of frustration in teaching is reduced. And of course it should increase the quality of teaching that undergraduates are exposed to in the next generation. With respect to training in budget management and similar skills: I would strongly encourage graduate students to get together and ask their faculty for skills-based courses. These could be short courses or weekend workshops. It too will save you time in the long run. Good luck to everyone entering the job market. Sincerely, Christa Mulder On 10/22/2012 1:03 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: I've been following this thread with great interest. I've found many of the comments to be on par with my own graduate school experiences. My graduate school experience has been a mixed bag of positive and negative experiences. However, I've found that overall the graduate school experience has not been everything that I hoped it would be. When I originally made the decision to go to graduate school I did so because I was interested in pursing an academic career (teaching/research). Personally, I am still on the fence about a research versus teaching position but giving the saturation of the job market the choice may be made for me (at the least at the entry level). However, in many ways I feel that graduate school has not prepared me as well as it could to become a professor. For instance opportunities to gain teaching experience are limited. TA's often do not provide lecture or lesson development opportunities and tend to be structured in advance. Some graduate students seem to enjoy this as it reduces their work load and provides time for research, which is certainly important, but it does seem to reduce opportunities for active engagement in teaching and development of teaching skills by graduate students. I was fortunate to partake in NSF GK-12 program which at least provided some of this experience albeit at the 7th grade level which may count for very little when it comes to acquiring a job. On the flip side looking at research I also find the graduate school experience failing to provide opportunities to help develop the skills I need to do research or one day run my own lab. Reduced library and departmental budgets make ready access to literature and software challenging. Additionally, I've been fortunate enough to write and secure my own fellowships and grants. However, being only a graduate student I am afforded little opportunity to actively engage in the management of those research funds. Managing large grants and fellowship funds seems like a rather useful skill to possess when exiting school with PhD. Instead much of the financial matters take place behind a veil of administration and bureaucracy until one day someone tell you that your out of $$. A former graduate student in the same department as mine once referred to graduate students as the illegal immigrant workforce of the academic world. In many ways I think he is right. Many, but not all, graduate students work tremendously hard and long hours for little pay. Of course the pay doesn't bother me as much as some of the other issues. For one I find the level of healthcare coverage provided to graduate students to be ridiculously poor. I know of many graduate students that have suffered
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
Aaron, you seem to have a whole lot on your mind re this topic! Clearly, for a spousal hire to take place, one of the spice had to have many of the properties to which I alluded, and it's really unlikely that the other would be hired unless he/she also had such abilities and achievements as well, although in less superlative supplies. Not all spousal hires are what they seem. Sometimes universities get a great deal by offering one position (plus two sets of benefits) to two people. For most applicants for faculty jobs, it's a buyers' market, with the institutions having a bit of an upper hand. But it's a sellers' market for the top people, and spousal hires are a major inducement used to recruit the top folks. The cost of recruiting a sub-par faculty member who winds up not getting tenure – in terms of start-up and renovation costs, direct and indirect research costs foregone, students and post-docs foregone, and negative impact on a department's reputation nationally and internationally, to say nothing of the life-long adverse (often, hugely adverse) impacts on the faculty member him/herself – are simply too great for departments not to try their damnedest to recruit the person(s) they see having the greatest potential. At least in the cases with which I'm familiar, spousal hires at the tenure-track level are hardly automatic, and alternative appointments of a spouse as a research assistant or senior scientist or academic staff are the most likely development if the spouse really isn't up to tenure-track standards at the institution in question. Such appointments are almost always put on the leadership of a non-spouse, to avoid problems of nepotism (or even worse problems if a divorce occurs). And spousal hires at the faculty level often (but not always) are made in other departments, for many of the same reasons. I believe that an increased emphasis on spousal hires in academics is a humane development. It's one of the very few ways that academic jobs have become less daunting over the past twenty years. I don't have data, but I suspect faculty-faculty marriages split much more frequently 30 years ago, when spousal hires were rare, than they do today. That's a good thing (a very good thing) for faculty and especially for their children. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/20/12, Aaron T. Dossey wrote: How do you explain the very high number of spousal hires? On 10/18/2012 10:03 PM, Thomas J. Givnish wrote: you need excellent research, combined with strong writing and oral presentation skills, ability to think on your feet, and empathy to interact well with students and colleagues, to have a real chance of success at landing a job at first- or second-tier universities. -- 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 --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary - buyers market
My experience isn't the same as yours. Departments are often quite happy to get rid of someone with delusions of grandeur. At my own institution, the reality is that state funding isn't going anywhere but south, and so each department will soon have to pay a financial price or opportunity cost for any retention package offered over the next several years. This development is going to have a lot of adverse effects, but it will deliver the feedback needed to keep initial and retention offers rational. To that extent, it is a sane development. What is not a sane development, of course, is the declining share of the budget that states are choosing to invest in education at all levels. Leaving personal careers completely out of the picture, I would say that this is a slo-mo tsunami of a national tragedy and the beginning of the end for the US economic and political system. We have rules in place to avoid nepotism, as I'd mentioned. I wish it were the case that who you know were less important in determining who gets jobs, and when I serve on searches, I demand that decisions all be merit-based. But I don't think we'll ever get to a situation where politics, friendships, and the like don't have an effect. Disagree strongly with your view that tenure be discarded. Though, Lord knows, I can think of a few cases where departments or universities would have greatly benefitted from being able to dismiss a few miscreants. Cheers, Tom On 10/20/12, Aaron T. Dossey wrote: EXACTLY! So, why is it that in EVERY case I am aware of (several) where a faculty member or applicant has threatened to leave (or not come there) if the institution/department doesn't: hire their spouse with a full tenure track position of their own OR give them twice as much lab space and resources OR give them twice as many students or postechs/postemps OR some combination of those, among other demands. why is it that in all of the cases I have heard about, the institution caves to the demands and often gives MORE than was asked so easily? If I were a search or department chair and someone came to me and threatened to quit, or an applicant were to make such demands of resources and that I violate my ethical standards (ie: enable nepotism) ESPECIALLY (but not limited to) in THIS pathetic career environment for Ph.D. scientists... I would laugh in their face and fire/reject them before they got back to their hotel room - even though that's where I would send them immediately. There are literally HUNDREDS of fantastically qualified applicants (of course without considering who they are related or married to, play golf with, etc.) out there for nearly every faculty position - those filled, those advertised and the MANY that with faux advertisements - and any can be replaced with probably much better results than the department is getting currently. It's probably also time that tenure be done away with as well. On 10/21/2012 12:02 AM, Thomas J. Givnish wrote: For most applicants for faculty jobs, it's a buyers' market, with the institutions having a bit of an upper hand. -- 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 -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy-expo sed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org ³Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those who are doing it.² --attributed to Robert Heinlein, George Bernard Shaw and others --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary - buyers market
Wow. To extrapolate from your bad experiences to say that NO (state) universities or K-12 schools should receive greater funding than they do now doesn't seem justified. You haven't proven the magnitude of the supposed problems you see, or outlined a workable alternative educational and research system to meet our societal needs. A generation of students will suffer. And you are locking yourself out of potentially beneficial collaborations with academics by viewing all/most of them as corrupt. Cheers, Tom On 10/21/12, Aaron T. Dossey wrote: The egregious behavior I have witnessed a large fraction of the time in my relatively short career, almost exclusively by faculty - nepotism, spousal hires, intellectual property theft (institutionalized and informal), laziness, student abuse, postdoc abuse, technician abuse, data falsification, HIPPA violations, safety violations, students injured in unsafe labs, exploited students and postdocs, gatekeeper mentality (especially when it comes to careers and grant eligibility), elitism, antiquated institutional policy (such as but certainly not limited to: inability to collaborate with the private sector), ... and tenure on TOP of all that, making it impossible to weed out the bad seeds, thus making it impossible to prove that all this is just by a FEW bad seeds (leave a bad apple in the bucket, you know what happens)... all of this suggests that ignoring realities and the rigidness and rejection of change and reform does the ivory tower, education, research, outreach, innovation, etc. NO favors. It behooves no one (except possibly rightwing libertarians who would seek to replace our entire system with a monarchy, even if that be the unintended consequence of their pursuit of anarchy) to put their head in the sand and pretend that the current system is just fine, needs no reforms, isn't hurting anyone, just needs more money, needs no reform, etc.. I, for one, can not see increasing the budget for the current system - eg: throwing more money at universities with the current sets of policies. I'd like to see half of the entire federal research budget go toward more SBIR grants AND grants for which only non-faculty are eligible - AND the entire federal grant system be conducted with short anonymous applications - among many other reforms (again - ending spousal hires and tenure among them). I have a much longer list, and literature to support it, if you are interested. ;) Now I am going to irk the other half of the list and say I better get to bed lest I be late for church in the morning. Cheers! ATD On 10/21/2012 12:47 AM, Thomas J. Givnish wrote: What is not a sane development, of course, is the declining share of the budget that states are choosing to invest in education at all levels. -- 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 -- Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Some perspective
with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy-ex po sed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org ³Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those who are doing it.² --attributed to Robert Heinlein, George Bernard Shaw and others -- -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
I agree with the post below. I had fantastic advisors for my PhD and postdocs. I had a lot of independence and always got first/corresponding author status for my own work. And the process is long, but doesn't have to take forever - even in the US you can do a biology Ph.D. in 5 years. HOWEVER...you do have to be careful. Some people clearly have had bad experiences. Definitely scope out the lab and the department before you sign up. If you meet a lot of disgruntled students, that is a bad sign - especially since people usually try to give a positive spin on things in front of potential recruits. One thing I have observed is that not all mentoring styles work for all students. For instance, a student who is really independent may prefer a relatively hands-off mentoring style, whereas one who is a little more unsure of his/her path might want more suggestions regarding research topics and methods. As to whether getting a PhD is advantageous...well, that depends on what kind of jobs you are aiming for. If you want to head up a lab or teach at a college level, as I did, a PhD is generally required (or at least highly recommended). But a lot of other jobs in science may not. Also, you have to be really into your topic, such that the work you do, for your PhD and afterward, is fun for its own sake. Emily Moran On 10/17/2012 09:24 PM, Ryan McEwan wrote: There are many overgeneralizations in the points made by Aaron (and in the article linked above). Graduate school is HARD, no doubt about it, but I would guess that, in the field of ecology, the vast majority of graduate students are valued and respected members of communities within their program. That was certainly the case in all of my experiences. Graduate school can be an extremely fulfilling time and a very direct stepping stone into a rewarding career. The generalization that faculty members are oligarchs who steal the student’s intellectual property is absurd. Certainly there are instances where a faculty member mistreats graduate students, but they are *extremely* rare in my experience, and can be avoided if the students are careful in the application process. In particular, for students considering graduate school- meet the potential faculty member before you take the position, and talk to other people in the lab. **Interview on site if at all possible.** Contact students who have left the lab and ask about their experience. If you do these things(especially an on site interview) then you will have a very good idea about your prospects. Take a professional approach to the application process, be careful and selective, and you are likely to end up with a faculty mentor who truly cares about YOUR success and will do all they can to help you advance in your career. Happy Hunting. Ryan Ryan W. McEwan, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Biology The University of Dayton 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-2320 Office phone: 1.937.229.2558 Lab phone:1.937.229.2567 Office Location: SC 223D Email: ryan.mce...@udayton.edu Lab: http://academic.udayton.edu/ryanmcewanhttp://academic.udayton.edu/ryanmcewan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
Colleagues, We need to be careful about the assumption that the only real job for a person trained with a PhD is a tenure track faculty job. I do not believe this assumption to be true. Several of my colleagues are using their degree in the private sector. Respectfully, Stuart --- Stuart Borrett http://people.uncw.edu/borretts On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:16 PM, George Wang pseudotelph...@gmail.com wrote: not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training I believe the term you are looking for is under-employed, and in the case of PhD's, this often comes in the form of adjunct instructorship or dead-end technician positions. I would be interested in knowing this under- employment rate for (EEB) PhD's, and it's relativeness to other professions. I think this would be a more relevant number than the unemployment rate per se. On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:11:02 -0500, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: the 2010 unemployment rate for PHDs was 2.5%. Considering that its well into the 70%s (or so I'm told) in humanities, this is pretty darn good. However, not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training. But, this is true in an discipline and at any education level. M On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, brandi gartland b_lan...@hotmail.com wrote: As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy- exposed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - 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 -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
Borrett wrote: Colleagues, We need to be careful about the assumption that the only real job for a person trained with a PhD is a tenure track faculty job. I do not believe this assumption to be true. Several of my colleagues are using their degree in the private sector. Government service in science and conservation agencies is certainly an excellent line of work. EPA, USFWS, NOAA, NASA, state agencies, Army Corps of Engineers all are engaged in science and conservation. NGOs do good things, and employ ecologists also. David McNeely Respectfully, Stuart --- Stuart Borrett http://people.uncw.edu/borretts On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:16 PM, George Wang pseudotelph...@gmail.com wrote: not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training I believe the term you are looking for is under-employed, and in the case of PhD's, this often comes in the form of adjunct instructorship or dead-end technician positions. I would be interested in knowing this under- employment rate for (EEB) PhD's, and it's relativeness to other professions. I think this would be a more relevant number than the unemployment rate per se. On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:11:02 -0500, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: the 2010 unemployment rate for PHDs was 2.5%. Considering that its well into the 70%s (or so I'm told) in humanities, this is pretty darn good. However, not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training. But, this is true in an discipline and at any education level. M On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, brandi gartland b_lan...@hotmail.com wrote: As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy- exposed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - 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 -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
I could be wrong, but Under-employed does not = temporary. Under-employed indicates you are not working fulltime. There are plenty of jobs in life in which you are employed as a term employee. That does not mean you are either unemployed or under-employed. On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 8:18 PM, George Wang pseudotelph...@gmail.com wrote: not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training I believe the term you are looking for is under-employed, and in the case of PhD's, this often comes in the form of adjunct instructorship or dead-end technician positions. I would be interested in knowing this under- employment rate for (EEB) PhD's, and it's relativeness to other professions. I think this would be a more relevant number than the unemployment rate per se. On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:11:02 -0500, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: the 2010 unemployment rate for PHDs was 2.5%. Considering that its well into the 70%s (or so I'm told) in humanities, this is pretty darn good. However, not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training. But, this is true in an discipline and at any education level. M On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, brandi gartland b_lan...@hotmail.com wrote: As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy- exposed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - 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 -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
Mal, I always thought that under-employed meant working in a job that was below your training, not a comment on full or part-time status, or term or permanent (although you could argue about that last one I suppose). So underemployed for a PhD might be working in a job that only required a Masters or BSc degree. On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: I could be wrong, but Under-employed does not = temporary. Under-employed indicates you are not working fulltime. There are plenty of jobs in life in which you are employed as a term employee. That does not mean you are either unemployed or under-employed. - Gary D. Grossman, PhD Professor of Animal Ecology Warnell School of Forestry Natural Resources University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA 30602 Research teaching web site - http://grossman.myweb.uga.edu/http://www.arches.uga.edu/%7Egrossman Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish Sculpture by Gary D. Grossman http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gary-Grossmans-Sculpture-Portfolio/124819124227147http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#%21/album.php?aid=2002317id=1348406658 Hutson Gallery Provincetown, MA - www.hutsongallery.net/artists.html My ukulele channel - www.youtube.com/user/garydg29
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
Right now the government of Canada has hiring subsidies for under- and un-employed individuals. According to them, underemployed encompasses 3 categories: employed part-time, employed in a position below your skill level, OR employed in a contract lasting less than 6 months. On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gary Grossman gdgross...@gmail.com wrote: Mal, I always thought that under-employed meant working in a job that was below your training, not a comment on full or part-time status, or term or permanent (although you could argue about that last one I suppose). So underemployed for a PhD might be working in a job that only required a Masters or BSc degree. On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: I could be wrong, but Under-employed does not = temporary. Under-employed indicates you are not working fulltime. There are plenty of jobs in life in which you are employed as a term employee. That does not mean you are either unemployed or under-employed. - Gary D. Grossman, PhD Professor of Animal Ecology Warnell School of Forestry Natural Resources University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA 30602 Research teaching web site - http://grossman.myweb.uga.edu/http://www.arches.uga.edu/%7Egrossman Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish Sculpture by Gary D. Grossman http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gary-Grossmans-Sculpture-Portfolio/124819124227147 http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#%21/album.php?aid=2002317id=1348406658 Hutson Gallery Provincetown, MA - www.hutsongallery.net/artists.html My ukulele channel - www.youtube.com/user/garydg29 -- Rebecca
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
I'm very sorry to see that a few folks have had bad experiences in grad school. Many of us had very happy and productive times as graduate students. But I've seen enough over the years to recognize that faults in advisors, or in advisees, or both can result in mediocre to bad outcomes – most often for the advisee, but sometimes for the advisor as well. I did, however, want to comment on the statement that When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else (with) a degree. If you intend to pursue an academic career in research, nothing could be further than the truth. In cases where large numbers of recently minted Ph.D.'s or post-docs apply for several jobs in the same field, often the same, relatively few individuals get to short lists and are interviewed across the country. Applicants whose Ph.D. research (and subsequent work) are perceived to have significant, novel implications – and be scalable to future endeavors, and fundable by NSF or other agencies or foundations – are much more likely to be interviewed and offered jobs. That is what search committees look for. Not that search committees never make mistakes; they do, sometimes egregiously. A Ph.D. gets you in the door to submit an application, but you need excellent research, combined with strong writing and oral presentation skills, ability to think on your feet, and empathy to interact well with students and colleagues, to have a real chance of success at landing a job at first- or second-tier universities. Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 10/18/12, brandi gartland wrote: As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy-exposed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - 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 --
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
the 2010 unemployment rate for PHDs was 2.5%. Considering that its well into the 70%s (or so I'm told) in humanities, this is pretty darn good. However, not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training. But, this is true in an discipline and at any education level. M On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, brandi gartland b_lan...@hotmail.com wrote: As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy-exposed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - 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 -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School - Reshuffling Graduate Training
Hi ECOLOG, As an American currently living and executing a PhD program in Europe, I feel compelled to write expressing my agreement with Wayne Dawson's comments. While it is true that many PhD projects for students are prescribed supervisors, this is not the only way it works. I, for example, had already formulated an idea for a PhD project, which I proposed to my supervisors. Many students that I know also had designed their own project, and many supervisors I know prefer taking on such students. Surely, this more American-style manner of approaching a PhD is becoming a lot more apparent here in Europe. In addition, many people in the US have the impression that the abbreviated nature of PhD programs in Europe deprive students of opportunities to take classes or teach. Actually, when deciding whether to elect a US vs. European institution for grad school, this was one major fear that I had about electing to enroll in a European program. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I am able to audit and course in my department, which my advisor supports strongly. Furthermore, most graduate students act as teaching assistants for departmental classes, whereby they regularly meet with and supervise groups of undergrads taking that class. These small-group sessions offer great teaching experience. In fact, many universities here place strong emphasis on a well-rounded PhD experience. Unlike most US programs, classes and teaching are not required nor prescribed by the department. Instead, courses and teaching are pursued by each graduate student and under their terms. I personally prefer this arrangement, as it permits each PhD project to be customized to optimally fit the needs of the student. I can not speak for European graduate programs in general, but at least from my experience as a PhD student in Europe, a lot of the negative American preconceptions about what graduate education represents in Europe have not been accurate. Of course, my view of US PhD programs has not diminished at all. I still revere the quality of American universities. However, after beginnig my PhD in Europe my appreciation for the European system has grown. I hope my comments are useful to you all. Best, Dave Daversa -- *David Daversa* *PhD Student Evolutionary Ecology Group, University of Cambridge Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London dd...@cam.ac.uk ddave...@gmail.com* http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/manica/drdaversa.htm* ddave...@gmail.com * On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Wayne Dawson wayne.daw...@uni-konstanz.dewrote: Hello ECOLOG, I'm not sure if a European perspective has been expressed yet, but I will do so anyway. I cannot comment on US PhD positions and the US grad school system, as I have no experience of them, but I do have experience of doing a PhD in Europe (in Britain), and of supervising/observing them in Switzerland and Germany. I disagree with Jane Shevtov's suggestion that most European PhDs are completely prescriptive, and do not allow the development and implementation of the student's own ideas. It is certainly wrong to suggest they are no more than technician posts. I agree that US PhDs allow the students more time to develop their own ideas. But, my experience is that there should be enough flexibility in European PhDs for the student to come up with and implement their own ideas within a broad question or topic, design their own experiments, analyse their own data, and write their own papers as first authors. It's too simplistic to say the US system is going to be better by default. They're just different, and one system may suit some people better than the other. German PhD positions in some institutions require students to be a member of a graduate school, but usually with choice involved in the precise courses taken. Even without compulsory grad school, PhD students in the UK and Switzerland are often encouraged by their supervisors to take extra courses in advanced statistics, project management, writing a research proposal etc., i.e. in courses which enhance their skills as a researcher. To me, an important function of doing a PhD is to learn how to do research in your given field, and courses taken should perhaps reflect this. That being said- I would encourage a PhD student to take grad school classes or equivalent when they have the opportunity- nobody ever stops learning. Best, Wayne Dawson
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training I believe the term you are looking for is under-employed, and in the case of PhD's, this often comes in the form of adjunct instructorship or dead-end technician positions. I would be interested in knowing this under- employment rate for (EEB) PhD's, and it's relativeness to other professions. I think this would be a more relevant number than the unemployment rate per se. On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:11:02 -0500, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: the 2010 unemployment rate for PHDs was 2.5%. Considering that its well into the 70%s (or so I'm told) in humanities, this is pretty darn good. However, not all PHDs are in permanent, tenure-track or jobs related to their training. But, this is true in an discipline and at any education level. M On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:57 PM, brandi gartland b_lan...@hotmail.com wrote: As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy- exposed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - 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 -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
I went a slightly alternative route, born and B.S.-ed in the US, but went to Australia (University of Tasmania) for my PhD in the marine conservation field, then returned to the US for my post doc. I had an overall great experience in Australia - like Europe, no class requirements and finished in 3-4 years. I had advisors who didn't just hand me a project 'recipe', but gave me space to develop my project, while also providing guidance when needed. I was also able to get tuition and a stipend covered, even as a foreign student. I know I was lucky, but would encourage students to keep Australia in mind in their PhD search! International conferences can be a great way to meet potential advisors, as well as over email and skype.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School -Knowledge of Today Documentary
As I am currently deciding on whether to enter a PhD program vs. consulting work/career position, I am finding this feed quite informative and wanted to respond to: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. I immediately thought of sharing this documentary, as it illustrates this very point as well as other ideas: http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/02/education-college-conspiracy-exposed.html -It illustrates how the U.S. educational system is not what it used to be and exposes the facts and truth about America's college education system. It was was produced over a six-month period by NIA's team of expert Austrian economists with the help of thousands of NIA members who contributed their ideas and personal stories for the film. NIA believes the U.S. college education system is a scam that turns vulnerable young Americans into debt slaves for life. Best wishes for us all in life, love, work, and happiness. Brandi M.S. Candidate Avian Sciences University of California, Davis Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:29:21 -0700 From: jane@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
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 -- - 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
Hello Ecolog, Here are my thoughts, written 11 PM from Boulder, CO. Grad school is indeed audacious, and not a default choice. As someone who spent 3 years on the 'dark side' (academic admin) I know that there are *huge* differences among labs. Some labs are very happy and students move to productive professional lives. Other labs are miserable. My advice is, ask yourself why you are going to grad school. Then use the web to investigate labs. In addition to contacting the prof, contact students in the lab and ask them about their experience. Like me, some profs encourage prospective students to contact current and former students (maybe I'm weird). By way, the numbers on NSERC (Canada) success rates quoted below are misleading. Success rates are low in some programs, well above 70% in others. For grad students, most universities in Canada offer 20-25K/ year in science, if you meet academic standards and are accepted. It's not princely, but then it's only 2 years for MSc, if you find the right lab. And it's mostly or all a stipend. It's not full time TA. David S. http://www.mun.ca/osc/dschneider/ Quoting Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com: Actually, I would strongly recommend AGAINST grad school, or grad school only as a last resort. There are many ways to achieve a successful and fruitful career while following your dreams, and many roads that do not lead through a stint as a temporary under-paid technician/piece of equipment (ie: grad student and postdoc/postech/postemp). First, figure out what you want to do, then investigate what it takes to get there. You'll be surprised at how few careers actually require a Ph.D., and how few careers which do require one actually exist/are available. Good luck! ATD of ATB -- Here is the article in Chronicle of Higher Ed. http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_09_28/caredit.a1200108 On 10/16/2012 11:38 PM, Lindsay Veazey wrote: As one of many hopeful individuals trying to find an open program in which to begin an advanced degree, I'd also like to point out the pitiful state of scientific funding in North America. The current NSERC funding success rate is below 8%, and the NSF success rate hovers around 20%. Additionally, in my discussions with students of all levels, both current and (hopefully) prospective, I've noticed that funding has essentially dried up for M.Sc candidates, and is not much better for Ph.D candidates. I'm wondering if any subscribers have recommendations for programs abroad, like MESPOM, that welcome foreign students instead of stack the deck against their entry. Dr. Dossey, thank you for a well written submission that rings all too true. -- 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 This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
Entrepreneurship is the new reality for most who want a career in original research. The ivory tower has failed the vast majority of aspiring scientists, especially those of us with Ph.D.'s. Other options: Start at a company and work your way up. Also, there are very good research positions in government labs which do not require a Ph.D. I know many non-Ph.D.'s who are heavily involved in original research and even run quite large labs - USDA particularly and some universities. I am sure there are also examples at NIH, CDC, National Labs, etc. So, there are many very good alternatives to such narrow antiquated thinking on this topic. Universities are no longer the centers of innovation they use to be - sad but true. On 10/17/2012 12:32 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: Please don't create the impression that graduate school requires working as a technician. That's mainly true if you're funded by your advisor's grant. If you can get a university fellowship or teaching assistantship, it's a whole other story. I finished my Ph.D. in ecology this year under a university fellowship with an advisor who hadn't applied for a grant since the mid-1980s. It was a great experience and he never asked his grad students to do scut work. (Admittedly, the fact that our research group was modeling-oriented helped.) Also, how do you get a job doing original research without a PhD? As far as I know, you can't except in very rare circumstances. That's really the only good reason to pursue a PhD. Jane Shevtsov On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Aaron T. Dosseybugoc...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, I would strongly recommend AGAINST grad school, or grad school only as a last resort. There are many ways to achieve a successful and fruitful career while following your dreams, and many roads that do not lead through a stint as a temporary under-paid technician/piece of equipment (ie: grad student and postdoc/postech/postemp). First, figure out what you want to do, then investigate what it takes to get there. You'll be surprised at how few careers actually require a Ph.D., and how few careers which do require one actually exist/are available. Good luck! ATD of ATB -- 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 On 10/16/2012 11:38 PM, Lindsay Veazey wrote: As one of many hopeful individuals trying to find an open program in which to begin an advanced degree, I'd also like to point out the pitiful state of scientific funding in North America. The current NSERC funding success rate is below 8%, and the NSF success rate hovers around 20%. Additionally, in my discussions with students of all levels, both current and (hopefully) prospective, I've noticed that funding has essentially dried up for M.Sc candidates, and is not much better for Ph.D candidates. I'm wondering if any subscribers have recommendations for programs abroad, like MESPOM, that welcome foreign students instead of stack the deck against their entry. Dr. Dossey, thank you for a well written submission that rings all too true. -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School - Reshuffling Graduate Training
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. Dosseybugoc...@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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School - Reshuffling Graduate Training
Hello ECOLOG, I'm not sure if a European perspective has been expressed yet, but I will do so anyway. I cannot comment on US PhD positions and the US grad school system, as I have no experience of them, but I do have experience of doing a PhD in Europe (in Britain), and of supervising/observing them in Switzerland and Germany. I disagree with Jane Shevtov's suggestion that most European PhDs are completely prescriptive, and do not allow the development and implementation of the student's own ideas. It is certainly wrong to suggest they are no more than technician posts. I agree that US PhDs allow the students more time to develop their own ideas. But, my experience is that there should be enough flexibility in European PhDs for the student to come up with and implement their own ideas within a broad question or topic, design their own experiments, analyse their own data, and write their own papers as first authors. It's too simplistic to say the US system is going to be better by default. They're just different, and one system may suit some people better than the other. German PhD positions in some institutions require students to be a member of a graduate school, but usually with choice involved in the precise courses taken. Even without compulsory grad school, PhD students in the UK and Switzerland are often encouraged by their supervisors to take extra courses in advanced statistics, project management, writing a research proposal etc., i.e. in courses which enhance their skills as a researcher. To me, an important function of doing a PhD is to learn how to do research in your given field, and courses taken should perhaps reflect this. That being said- I would encourage a PhD student to take grad school classes or equivalent when they have the opportunity- nobody ever stops learning. Best, Wayne Dawson
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
This s very good advice. I would add to talk all students, postdocs, both current AND FORMER from the labs you are considering. Do this well in advance, even before you apply. Consider not ONLY their opinion of the experience yeah, I had fun will not get you a good career/job. Ask them questions like were you allowed to publish your own work independently of the boss if you wished?, did your boss force you to work evenings and weekends?, How many hours per week did your faculty boss actually work in the lab? How frequently did you meet with them, or even see them? Every week, few weeks, every few months, or less?... I can give you additional important questions to ask if you like. Only 2 years for MSc is a bit misleading. In science careers most of the time MSc doesn't count for much - the oligarchs and gatekeepers of the ivory tower categorize the world as Ph.D. or no Ph.D., which I find deplorable, elitist and unproductive. Also, consider the following as to the value of a Ph.D. in one's career search - and that 14% or less of Ph.D.s will get one of those cushy academic positions (and read the articles and posts on this page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Postdoc-Union/275402225908673 ): When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. In the field of environmental science, for example, I would guess that the need for a Ph.D. is even less - there is a great need for this feed particularly in applied work, policy, non-profit organizations, etc. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Also, right out of undergrad or grad school, the academic world (guess what - 14% or less of Ph.D.'s in this country will land one of those cushy cushy do-nothing-paid-much supreme-court-like job security independent academic research jobs anyhow) you haven't yet finished the requirement of your indentured servitude. You must still pay the faculty gatekeepers MORE years of your life and intellectual property via endless postdoc/postech/postemp positions. Again, read the articles on the National Postdoc Union page. No one gets a faculty position right out of grad school anymore, or anything close to it, unless they marry into one, their spouse gets one for them or some other form of nepotism (a friend or relative on the search committee). https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Postdoc-Union/275402225908673 On 10/17/2012 1:23 AM, David Schneider wrote: Hello Ecolog, Here are my thoughts, written 11 PM from Boulder, CO. Grad school is indeed audacious, and not a default choice. As someone who spent 3 years on the 'dark side' (academic admin) I know that there are *huge* differences among labs. Some labs are very happy and students move to productive professional lives. Other labs are miserable. My advice is, ask yourself why you are going to grad school. Then use the web to investigate labs. In addition to contacting the prof, contact students in the lab and ask them about their experience. Like me, some profs encourage prospective students to contact current and former students (maybe I'm weird). By way, the numbers on NSERC (Canada) success rates quoted below are misleading. Success rates are low in some programs, well above 70% in others. For grad students, most universities in Canada offer 20-25K/ year in science, if you meet academic standards and are accepted. It's not princely, but then it's only 2 years for MSc, if you find the right lab. And it's mostly or all a stipend. It's not full time TA. David S. http://www.mun.ca/osc/dschneider/ Quoting Aaron T. Dosseybugoc...@gmail.com: Actually, I would strongly recommend AGAINST grad school, or grad school only as a last resort. There are many ways to achieve a successful and fruitful career while following your dreams, and many roads that do not lead through a stint as a temporary under-paid technician/piece of equipment (ie: grad student and postdoc/postech/postemp). First, figure out what you want to do, then investigate what it takes to get there. You'll be surprised at how few careers actually require a Ph.D., and how few careers which do require one actually exist/are available. Good luck! ATD of ATB -- Here is the article in Chronicle of Higher Ed. http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_09_28/caredit.a1200108 On 10/16/2012 11:38 PM, Lindsay Veazey wrote: As one of many hopeful individuals trying to find an open program in which to begin an advanced degree, I'd also like to point out the
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
Hmmm, perhaps. I am Pia Paaby, I have a Ph.D. and currently supporting an educational program in Organization for Tropical Studies in Costa Rica. A lot of our efforts are concentrated on stimulating students to actually take this important decision... go to grad school and keep going until you get a Ph.D. The reason we do this is because we are of the opinion that a lot of research is generated by grad students. Tropical areas are in great need of information to keep learning about sustainable management of biodiversity. Regarding publishing, this is actually some of our greatest successes because we have 8 weeks experiences with undergraduates doing only research together with mentors... of all these we have had 25 % published articles in edited journals where all of them have had the student as the main author. The one that thinks about the question, decides on the field design, analyzes and then finally writes the article will always have first authorship... so we teach our students to do this. Some thoughts for you guys to make a decision. Ph.D is usually a research avenue. M.Sc. is usually a technical and development avenue. Ig you are business oriented and have great skills at it, then degrees usually do not make any difference on income. In any other fields, a degree makes a huge difference. Saludos Pia -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Aaron T. Dossey Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:41 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School This s very good advice. I would add to talk all students, postdocs, both current AND FORMER from the labs you are considering. Do this well in advance, even before you apply. Consider not ONLY their opinion of the experience yeah, I had fun will not get you a good career/job. Ask them questions like were you allowed to publish your own work independently of the boss if you wished?, did your boss force you to work evenings and weekends?, How many hours per week did your faculty boss actually work in the lab? How frequently did you meet with them, or even see them? Every week, few weeks, every few months, or less?... I can give you additional important questions to ask if you like. Only 2 years for MSc is a bit misleading. In science careers most of the time MSc doesn't count for much - the oligarchs and gatekeepers of the ivory tower categorize the world as Ph.D. or no Ph.D., which I find deplorable, elitist and unproductive. Also, consider the following as to the value of a Ph.D. in one's career search - and that 14% or less of Ph.D.s will get one of those cushy academic positions (and read the articles and posts on this page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Postdoc-Union/275402225908673 ): When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. In the field of environmental science, for example, I would guess that the need for a Ph.D. is even less - there is a great need for this feed particularly in applied work, policy, non-profit organizations, etc. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Also, right out of undergrad or grad school, the academic world (guess what - 14% or less of Ph.D.'s in this country will land one of those cushy cushy do-nothing-paid-much supreme-court-like job security independent academic research jobs anyhow) you haven't yet finished the requirement of your indentured servitude. You must still pay the faculty gatekeepers MORE years of your life and intellectual property via endless postdoc/postech/postemp positions. Again, read the articles on the National Postdoc Union page. No one gets a faculty position right out of grad school anymore, or anything close to it, unless they marry into one, their spouse gets one for them or some other form of nepotism (a friend or relative on the search committee). https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Postdoc-Union/275402225908673 On 10/17/2012 1:23 AM, David Schneider wrote: Hello Ecolog, Here are my thoughts, written 11 PM from Boulder, CO. Grad school is indeed audacious, and not a default choice. As someone who spent 3 years on the 'dark side' (academic admin) I know that there are *huge* differences among labs. Some labs are very happy and students move to productive professional lives. Other labs are miserable. My advice is, ask yourself why you are going to grad school. Then use the web to investigate labs. In addition to contacting the prof, contact students in the lab and ask
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School - Reshuffling Graduate Training
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dossey bugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- - 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
When I was considering graduate school to pursue a Ph.D. in ecology, the best advice I received was that I shouldn't go to graduate school unless I wanted to do it for its own sake - the experience of doing research in a Ph.D. program - not to seek a qualification for employment later. Not necessarily because of the difficulty in finding research/academic employment, but because graduate school is long and hard and it wouldn't be worth it to spend that much of my life seeking a qualification. This advice cleared everything up for me! I was worried about whether or not I would be able to find, or would even want, academic employment after graduate school, but I knew I wanted the experience of being immersed in research and the freedom to pursue my own ideas. I'm happily employed in academia now, but I still consider graduate school one of the happiest periods of my life, and an incredible privilege. I was fortunate to be in a well-funded program with a fantastic advisor, but that didn't mean I had generous personal income or there weren't lots challenges. I considered both of those conditions the price of admission, and didn't expect a guarantee of research-related employment later. Won't deny I was generally excited about free food - something I'm still trying to train myself out of. Camille McNeely On 10/16/12, Lindsay Veazey lindsaymvea...@gmail.com wrote: As one of many hopeful individuals trying to find an open program in which to begin an advanced degree, I'd also like to point out the pitiful state of scientific funding in North America. The current NSERC funding success rate is below 8%, and the NSF success rate hovers around 20%. Additionally, in my discussions with students of all levels, both current and (hopefully) prospective, I've noticed that funding has essentially dried up for M.Sc candidates, and is not much better for Ph.D candidates. I'm wondering if any subscribers have recommendations for programs abroad, like MESPOM, that welcome foreign students instead of stack the deck against their entry. Dr. Dossey, thank you for a well written submission that rings all too true.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? NO - see my previous emails today on this topic as well. Here is an excerpt: The publication opportunity I was referring to earlier was not for very young inexperienced scientists with no degree (shortly out of high school). First note that you said primary author. What you mean is first author, but the more prestigious and career-important author position is CORRESPONDING author. Through corresponding authorship, you get contacted by colleagues about your work for collaborations, JOB OFFERS, and even journal awards (I got screwed out of one because of this). Of course faculty demand this for themselves, even if they didn't earn any form of authorship, because they can filter communications between readers and the other authors. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? This happens a lot actually, and with a VERY high frequency to postdocs. people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer The EMPLOYER of students is the institution. I have no problem with IP sharing if a student or any other employee of an institution uses the institution's (eg: the people's) resources to invent something that does or could make money. Often the IP portion going to the institution is about 50% which I think is fair in most cases, unless the person only works there part time or can somehow that the institution and/or its staff some how did not contribute to the invention significantly or even were counter-productive in the endeavor. Thus, in your analogy - if a scientist working at a company invents something or otherwise produces something (artwork for marketing, etc.) in the course of their work there, it is typically company property and in some cases an agreement of royalty sharing (probably rare). It does NOT belong to their supervisor. Their supervisor is merely another employee serving a different role - but is NOT necessarily involved in the invention or credit/reward for it, nor should they be by default alone. Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? At BEST students are treated like employees in our broken Academia system. They are often treated simply as pieces of equipment or slaves. ie: What you produce belongs to the professor, regardless of any other detail or fact. Deplorable. On 10/17/2012 1:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Aaron T. Dosseybugoc...@gmail.com wrote: When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. Can you make a rough estimate of the relative frequencies of each. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Isn't that taken care of by the first author/last author distinction? A PI may get some undeserved credit, but that's different from the student not getting credit. The paper is still cited as Student et al. Or are you talking about taking the student's idea outright? BTW, if you believe that grad students are employees to the point of needing a union and thinking of their advisor as their boss, I would point out that people who do creative work as employees rarely keep the rights to their work. Typically, the intellectual property belongs to their employer (work done for hire). Isn't it better to say that grad students are not employees? -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
There are many overgeneralizations in the points made by Aaron (and in the article linked above). Graduate school is HARD, no doubt about it, but I would guess that, in the field of ecology, the vast majority of graduate students are valued and respected members of communities within their program. That was certainly the case in all of my experiences. Graduate school can be an extremely fulfilling time and a very direct stepping stone into a rewarding career. The generalization that faculty members are oligarchs who steal the student’s intellectual property is absurd. Certainly there are instances where a faculty member mistreats graduate students, but they are *extremely* rare in my experience, and can be avoided if the students are careful in the application process. In particular, for students considering graduate school- meet the potential faculty member before you take the position, and talk to other people in the lab. **Interview on site if at all possible.** Contact students who have left the lab and ask about their experience. If you do these things(especially an on site interview) then you will have a very good idea about your prospects. Take a professional approach to the application process, be careful and selective, and you are likely to end up with a faculty mentor who truly cares about YOUR success and will do all they can to help you advance in your career. Happy Hunting. Ryan Ryan W. McEwan, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Biology The University of Dayton 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-2320 Office phone: 1.937.229.2558 Lab phone:1.937.229.2567 Office Location: SC 223D Email: ryan.mce...@udayton.edu Lab: http://academic.udayton.edu/ryanmcewanhttp://academic.udayton.edu/ryanmcewan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
It is also absurd to say that academia is no longer where innovation takes place. Sure, it might take a little longer than in private industry, but there are many innovative individuals with very creative ideas in academia, too. I know because I work with many of them and we are continually thinking of new ways to approach current problems and scientific questions. Really, I think it is all about what you make of your situation, no matter where you are. If you are in private industry or a public institution or agency and you see a need or area that should be advanced, then it is up to you to either put your mind to it and/or find others to join in your effort. You're only limited by how narrow your thinking is. Steve -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Ryan McEwan Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:25 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School There are many overgeneralizations in the points made by Aaron (and in the article linked above). Graduate school is HARD, no doubt about it, but I would guess that, in the field of ecology, the vast majority of graduate students are valued and respected members of communities within their program. That was certainly the case in all of my experiences. Graduate school can be an extremely fulfilling time and a very direct stepping stone into a rewarding career. The generalization that faculty members are oligarchs who steal the student's intellectual property is absurd. Certainly there are instances where a faculty member mistreats graduate students, but they are *extremely* rare in my experience, and can be avoided if the students are careful in the application process. In particular, for students considering graduate school- meet the potential faculty member before you take the position, and talk to other people in the lab. **Interview on site if at all possible.** Contact students who have left the lab and ask about their experience. If you do these things(especially an on site interview) then you will have a very good idea about your prospects. Take a professional approach to the application process, be careful and selective, and you are likely to end up with a faculty mentor who truly cares about YOUR success and will do all they can to help you advance in your career. Happy Hunting. Ryan Ryan W. McEwan, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Biology The University of Dayton 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-2320 Office phone: 1.937.229.2558 Lab phone:1.937.229.2567 Office Location: SC 223D Email: ryan.mce...@udayton.edu Lab: http://academic.udayton.edu/ryanmcewanhttp://academic.udayton.edu/ryanmcewan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
I'm sorry that you obviously had a poor graduate school experience but I'd warn others that your experiences are not everyone's. I had wonderful graduate advisors that not only were colleagues but treated us fairly, made us feel at home often hundreds of miles from home, and provided wonderful opportunities to travel and make important contacts. Not all advisors are certainly like that but 8 years since graduating, I still know them, their families, and a number of great people I met through graduate school. Sure, I worked nights, weekends, and long hours but I still do, even in my cushy academic position. If you love what you do - and I do most times - it's generally all worth it. As others have mentioned, grad school is worth it if it's something that you really want to do. Even wanting to do it, enjoying the people I worked with, and really enjoying the challenge of what I did; I was ready to be done 5 (of 7) years in. It's a lot of work and it's not for everyone. -J Jason G. Freund Assistant Professor, Environmental Science Carroll University 100 N. East Avenue Waukesha, WI 53186 jfre...@carrollu.edu 262.524.7146 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Aaron T. Dossey Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:41 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School This s very good advice. I would add to talk all students, postdocs, both current AND FORMER from the labs you are considering. Do this well in advance, even before you apply. Consider not ONLY their opinion of the experience yeah, I had fun will not get you a good career/job. Ask them questions like were you allowed to publish your own work independently of the boss if you wished?, did your boss force you to work evenings and weekends?, How many hours per week did your faculty boss actually work in the lab? How frequently did you meet with them, or even see them? Every week, few weeks, every few months, or less?... I can give you additional important questions to ask if you like. Only 2 years for MSc is a bit misleading. In science careers most of the time MSc doesn't count for much - the oligarchs and gatekeepers of the ivory tower categorize the world as Ph.D. or no Ph.D., which I find deplorable, elitist and unproductive. Also, consider the following as to the value of a Ph.D. in one's career search - and that 14% or less of Ph.D.s will get one of those cushy academic positions (and read the articles and posts on this page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Postdoc-Union/275402225908673 ): When we graduate, we have more or less the same credentials as everyone else - a degree. There are many successful scientists without Ph.D.'s but many more with Ph.D.'s who are unemployed. In the field of environmental science, for example, I would guess that the need for a Ph.D. is even less - there is a great need for this feed particularly in applied work, policy, non-profit organizations, etc. Also, to emphasize how little we get out of a Ph.D. (a lot is stolen from us), we don't get credit for our work or publications because the professor always gets credit for everything we do while in their lab as a student or postdoc (which is something I am fighting on other fronts - I call it institutionalized intellectual property theft). Also, right out of undergrad or grad school, the academic world (guess what - 14% or less of Ph.D.'s in this country will land one of those cushy cushy do-nothing-paid-much supreme-court-like job security independent academic research jobs anyhow) you haven't yet finished the requirement of your indentured servitude. You must still pay the faculty gatekeepers MORE years of your life and intellectual property via endless postdoc/postech/postemp positions. Again, read the articles on the National Postdoc Union page. No one gets a faculty position right out of grad school anymore, or anything close to it, unless they marry into one, their spouse gets one for them or some other form of nepotism (a friend or relative on the search committee). https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Postdoc-Union/275402225908673 On 10/17/2012 1:23 AM, David Schneider wrote: Hello Ecolog, Here are my thoughts, written 11 PM from Boulder, CO. Grad school is indeed audacious, and not a default choice. As someone who spent 3 years on the 'dark side' (academic admin) I know that there are *huge* differences among labs. Some labs are very happy and students move to productive professional lives. Other labs are miserable. My advice is, ask yourself why you are going to grad school. Then use the web to investigate labs. In addition to contacting the prof, contact students in the lab and ask them about their experience. Like me, some profs encourage prospective students to contact current and former students (maybe I'm weird
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
Part of the problem is that institutions, colleges, departments, programs, etc. do not do a good job (or do not do at all) of pre-screening faculty to determine who should and who should NOT be allowed to serve as mentors (I use the term very broadly here). The entire onus should not be placed upon the students. They are fresh out of undergrad and know little if anything about grad school or the system, whereas faculty and admin, it's their JOB to know AND to inform the students. Think about a student entering a Ph.D. program like you walking into the store picking out an orange, or toothpaste. You take for granted that there is no mercury or cyanide in these products when you buy them. If there is and you fall ill, you, all of society and the courts place the fault on the business from whence you bought them, not on you for 'not being more careful about which one you selected from the stack'. The products were all offered up by the store with the presumption of safety - our entire retail system is based on that assumption. Otherwise we would all live in a primitive brutal nightmare (libertarian paradise?) and never feel safe. Picking a mentor is very similar. When you get a list of available mentors in a graduate program, or however the selections are presented to you, the program should have screened for bad apples so that students can more or less assume that they won't be abused or taken advantage of during the experience AT MINIMUM, and really should expect that this person has vowed to dedicate a substantial amount of their time, efforts, energy and intellectual capacity (yes, even in LIEU of other activities that may be more beneficial to their own careers, God forbid) in order to foster the career of the student. On 10/17/2012 3:24 PM, Ryan McEwan wrote: There are many overgeneralizations in the points made by Aaron (and in the article linked above). Graduate school is HARD, no doubt about it, but I would guess that, in the field of ecology, the vast majority of graduate students are valued and respected members of communities within their program. That was certainly the case in all of my experiences. Graduate school can be an extremely fulfilling time and a very direct stepping stone into a rewarding career. The generalization that faculty members are oligarchs who steal the student’s intellectual property is absurd. Certainly there are instances where a faculty member mistreats graduate students, but they are *extremely* rare in my experience, and can be avoided if the students are careful in the application process. In particular, for students considering graduate school- meet the potential faculty member before you take the position, and talk to other people in the lab. **Interview on site if at all possible.** Contact students who have left the lab and ask about their experience. If you do these things(especially an on site interview) then you will have a very good idea about your prospects. Take a professional approach to the application process, be careful and selective, and you are likely to end up with a faculty mentor who truly cares about YOUR success and will do all they can to help you advance in your career. Happy Hunting. Ryan Ryan W. McEwan, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Biology The University of Dayton 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-2320 Office phone: 1.937.229.2558 Lab phone:1.937.229.2567 Office Location: SC 223D Email: ryan.mce...@udayton.edu Lab: http://academic.udayton.edu/ryanmcewanhttp://academic.udayton.edu/ryanmcewan -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
Actually, I would strongly recommend AGAINST grad school, or grad school only as a last resort. There are many ways to achieve a successful and fruitful career while following your dreams, and many roads that do not lead through a stint as a temporary under-paid technician/piece of equipment (ie: grad student and postdoc/postech/postemp). First, figure out what you want to do, then investigate what it takes to get there. You'll be surprised at how few careers actually require a Ph.D., and how few careers which do require one actually exist/are available. Good luck! ATD of ATB -- 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 On 10/16/2012 11:38 PM, Lindsay Veazey wrote: As one of many hopeful individuals trying to find an open program in which to begin an advanced degree, I'd also like to point out the pitiful state of scientific funding in North America. The current NSERC funding success rate is below 8%, and the NSF success rate hovers around 20%. Additionally, in my discussions with students of all levels, both current and (hopefully) prospective, I've noticed that funding has essentially dried up for M.Sc candidates, and is not much better for Ph.D candidates. I'm wondering if any subscribers have recommendations for programs abroad, like MESPOM, that welcome foreign students instead of stack the deck against their entry. Dr. Dossey, thank you for a well written submission that rings all too true. -- 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Audacity of Graduate School
As one of many hopeful individuals trying to find an open program in which to begin an advanced degree, I'd also like to point out the pitiful state of scientific funding in North America. The current NSERC funding success rate is below 8%, and the NSF success rate hovers around 20%. Additionally, in my discussions with students of all levels, both current and (hopefully) prospective, I've noticed that funding has essentially dried up for M.Sc candidates, and is not much better for Ph.D candidates. I'm wondering if any subscribers have recommendations for programs abroad, like MESPOM, that welcome foreign students instead of stack the deck against their entry. Dr. Dossey, thank you for a well written submission that rings all too true.
