If you care about climbing the ladder of academic success, it is what you want. If you don't yet have tenure, it is what you desperately need. Most professors have no time (or desire) to do any lab work themselves. It all comes down to students and postdocs. And how hard they work depends on how well their PIs motivate them.

Bonuses, pay raises, promotions and stock options are commonly used for motivational purposes in the business world. But we are not in the world of business here. This is Sparta! Academia. Fortunately, a PI can employ other methods of workforce motivation. Unfortunately, most of them aren't pretty.

Sweatshops aside, only in their wildest dreams can corporate bosses have such power over their employees as research professors have over their PhD students and postdocs. There are no labor unions to worry about, no strikes, no contracts, no concept of overtime. It's up to the PI to make the rules. And with their diplomas and careers on the line, it's up to the students and postdocs to suck it up and cooperate.

PIs who are not aggressive at riding the backs of their group members are at a serious disadvantage against the PIs who are. Speaking crudely but bluntly, it's a choice of being either a dick or a loser. For those professors who choose to be ambitious, two basic options, or archetypes, are available for adoption:

1. The Slave Driver

The Slave Driver approach is to demand, control and get. It's a relatively straightforward, reliable strategy of "my way or the highway". A slave driver PI might:

• enforce a strict schedule of (long) working hours in the lab;
• phone in or drop by the lab on Saturday nights to make note of who is slacking off;
• personally check everybody's laboratory notebooks on a regular basis;
• praise group members who manage to work 36 hours straight, without sleep, all the while handling toxic or explosive chemicals;
• threaten, yell, and generally have a "bad side" people are terrified of getting on, etc.

2. The Manipulator

Relies on a more subtle and artful approach. Manipulators excel at inspiring other people to do what they want them to. A manipulator PI can:

• convince (in effect, brainwash) a person to believe that literally nothing in the world is more important than to "work hard and get good results";
• gain trust by acting like a pal, or a father/mother figure, rather than like a boss;
• have you believe he/she both a) has got your best interests at heart, and b) knows what's best for you;
• look for a person's individual "buttons" and push them to achieve desired effects on behavior;
• masquerade genuine concern for research progress as caring about the people involved;
• play on human egos, hopes, fears, etc.

And, of course, there are varying degrees and lengths different professors will go to in acting out either or both of the above general strategies at different stages of their careers. The moral of the story is: PIs who act like dicks (or, pardonnez-moi, like bitches) should not be judged too harshly. After all, they are simply trying to be good at their jobs.

3. Think for yourself

Today's reading material is this presentation by Dr. Peter S. Fiske. It's about scientists and engineers being forced to explore non-traditional career paths due to PhD gluts. It is also about scientists and engineers being fit to succeed on all kinds of career paths.

95% of PhDs can be expected to leave Academia for good. And yet, a typical PhD+postdoc experience is basically geared towards training new faculty. Partly because you spend all this time in the academic environment. By default, that's what you are going to end up knowing best. And partly because Academia raises its own employees. It's a sensible approach to:

1. train all PhD students/postdocs as potential professors;
2. hire a few of the most promising, suitable and willing trainees;
3. let the outside world sort out the rest.

To be sure, the world and the job market will do just that. And you might want to start thinking about it long before you get your diploma. In fact, unless your are hell-bent on becoming a professor, always keeping one foot outside the door of Academia and in the "real" world is a good idea. Just don't expect anyone on the inside to tell you that.

In short, you might want to stay off the Kool-Aid, keep exploring the opportunities outside the lab and keep your priorities straight. PI's will tend to lecture you about the importance of working really hard on your (their) research projects, coming in on weekends, "living in the lab", pushing yourself and so on. It's OK to nod and say "Amen", but don't forget: your life is your #1 project.

You have a brain that works better than most. You can figure it out.

2. How to avoid (still) being broke by the time you're 60

It doesn't mean that you can't have some of the good things in life--although it does mean you can't have all of them right away. If you have been waiting patiently for a new car, or better coffee, go ahead and enjoy them. Just don't develop a lot of expensive habits or indulge in them too often. Being underpaid for so many years can even work to your advantage: Years of tight spending have probably taught you a few things about living cheaply--but well. You probably don't even have time for too many indulgences, anyway.

Sounds great! Where do I sign up? Oh, right, 4 years in college, 6-7 years in grad school, 2-3 more as a postdoc.

The quote above is from an article called Personal Finance: Young Scientists Need Firm Plan to Make Up for a Late Start by Ken Robinson, Science 313, 5972, 1454-1457 (2006). You can read the full text here.

This Ken Robinson guy is a lawyer and a "certified financial planner™". He writes books and runs a financial counseling business from Cleveland, Ohio (website). There is nothing groundbreaking in terms of the actual advice in the article, most of it is common sense. Financial planning is good for you, you're going to need something to live off when you're old and useless, so don't blow all your money on cocaine and hookers now — the basic stuff applicable to anybody. It's all true and financial planners keep droning about it all the time.

What's more interesting is a direct look at the financial situation of a scientist. Presumably, a scientist in Academia — judging by the mention of the "obligations of an academic career" and $60,000/year salary used in an example. Here is another great quote:

After a postdoc, you're used to living on a smaller income. All you have to do is keep doing what you're used to doing with a few modest and occasional indulgences added to your lifestyle. "If you start from the get-go, you will never miss that money," says financial planner Rob Reed of Reed Financial Planning in Columbus, Ohio. So start saving now while you're still accustomed to having far less.

Wow, thanks, Rob, that's awesome! Not.

A late start can hardly be blamed for everything. Whoever decides to get any education beyond high school is going to have a later start. Making the decision in favor of education, one might expect it to be worth the time and trouble. Including financially. Nobody is really saying that money is everything. But it ain't nothing either.

It does not quite work that way with science and the academic career path. It might not be a problem for some. For the others — the advice to "enjoy the coffee" is much closer to an insult, than a solution.

CONTINUE READING: PART III

Let's have a look at three examples of career and financial advice for young scientists. One article from Nature (in this post), another from Science, and a presentation from a recognized author and lecturer on the subject of career development for young scientists and engineers (in later posts).

1. What makes a good PhD student?

Here is an article by Dr. Georgia Chenevix-Trench, Nature 441, 252 (May 10, 2006).

Good PhD students, bad PhD students... Good for whom, bad for what? Remember, "good" and "bad" are relative terms. And yet the majority of advice is, essentially, directed at PhD students themselves (the article is subtitled Some tips for PhD students). Georgia is saying that PhD students should be "good", focus on their research, work hard, take very little time off and so on. But why, for whose benefit?

What the author identifies as the main problem is the "frustration and disappointment" experienced by PhD students and their advisors, and students' failure to "fulfill their aspirations to be independent scientists". She thinks it arises from the lack of initial understanding of "what doing a doctorate should entail". Her proposed solution is for the PhD-granting institutions to clearly explain to all perspective PhD students what they should be doing in graduate school. So, how about it?

First off, the advice on PhD recruitment tactics is bad. Fair warnings are nice, but academic institutions aren't stupid. "Come on up, work your ass off for 5-6 years" is not a selling point likely to raise PhD application rates. Consequently, it is not something that is going to be overly emphasized to perspective students. Neither will the quote...

Those who stick with a career in science do so because, despite the relatively poor pay, long hours and lack of security, it is all we want to do.

...ever find its way into any PhD program information booklets out there.

But Georgia is right, universities are under pressure. Except this pressure is not quite to "graduate as many PhD students as possible". Rather, it is to recruit as many, as smart, as skilled and as talented students as possible, and get them to do as much as possible before they leave. Growth, funding and prestige of an institution depend on the quality and quantity of new science it produces. PhD students and postdocs are the "worker ants" that push the research forward.

What makes a PhD student "good" from the point of an academic institution? Precisely what Prof. Chenevix-Trench is trying to pass off as friendly advice for science students worldwide. She probably means well, and her sentiment should be appreciated, but... Ever heard of a saying "the only good Indian is a dead Indian"? Well, now you also have "the only good student is a hard-working student".

Someone completely focused on research and contributing to science, with no outside interests or family. Someone who takes breaks only to avoid burning out and "goes home with a full briefcase to work on at the end of the day". This kind of dedication really does make for a "good" PhD student. Good indeed — for the PI, the department, the institution. Good for the student's own sake? No, not necessarily.

CONTINUE READING: PART II

I am talking about PhD programs in chemistry, biology and the like. What exactly is this process you have to go through to get a doctorate? Is it...

Education?

Kind of. Sort of. Not really.

The classes? Haphazard and inconsequential. You "get them out of your way" in the first year. At Scripps they actually told us not to worry about getting good grades. Passing is enough, nobody really cares. In the end, research work is what counts.

That's right, work. They expect you to put in 50-60 hours a week for 5 years. And they require you to be productive. Teach yourself what you need to do the work. Learn what you can while working. All that repetitive, routine, brain-numbing lab work is not going to do itself. Frustrated, you might start wondering if trained monkeys could replace you. Sorry, those are expensive. You, on the other hand, are not.

Since so much work is involved, perhaps being a graduate student is...

A job?

It better not be!

It can't be a real job, can it? A job is supposed to pay money. You are smart, educated and trained. You went to a university for 4 years, remember? It must be good for something. You know, 17-year-olds working at KFC make $12 an hour. Surely, your time is worth more.

$12 an hour, 50-60 hours a week, 52 weeks a year... At $12 an hour a PhD student would earn $31,000-$37,000 a year. Scripps is a relatively wealthy school, PhD stipend is pretty high there. As they say, nationally competitive. I believe it is $27,000 this year.

No, no, of course it is not a job. Don't be so materialistic, not everything is about the money. The magic of science is priceless. Down with fried chicken, you are going to have a PhD! Eventually. And meanwhile, movie tickets are $2 off with your student ID. There might also be free pizza, donuts or some other junk food every Friday at your department. Enjoy!

Alright. So it is not education and not a job. What is it then? What do you sign up for when you enter that PhD program? And the answer is...

Serfdom

You are tied down, you work a lot, and have little. Not quite as bad as slavery (slaves can be sold), but medieval nonetheless.

Here is a quote from someone you might know:

[Science Ph.D.] students have effectively become serfs. And who would become a serf when you can work for Goldman Sachs and get paid $300,000 a year to become a serf? Why drive a Chevy when you can drive a BMW — and now you're condemned to driving a car from Malaysia or something. Life should be fun.

— Dr. James Watson, 2007 (source)

I drove a 1996 Honda Civic. And the man has a point.

Further reading:

1. Do scientists really need a PhD? Nature 464, 7 (2010)
2. Japan's Ph.D. Glut Leaves Many Jobless The Chronicle of Higher Education 50, 49, A40 (2004)
3. The Future of the PhD Nature Special 472 (2011)