Thursday, April 16, 2009

Postdoc perceptions as to what a PI actually does

There’s been a couple of posts up this week over at Propter Doc's and Lou’s blogs about what the position of lecturer (UK)/assistant professor (US) actually entails and how even experienced postdocs are rarely prepared for what they face as a newly minted junior faculty member. As a new assistant professor with a ton of teaching experience and a 4yr postdoc under her belt prior to joining the faculty ranks, I can attest to this firsthand and this is primarily what I’ve been talking about on this blog.

I moseyed over to MsPhD’s blog yesterday and found myself getting a little hot under the collar about her most recent post. I commented on a few of the statements she had made and MsPhD subsequently, and expectedly, accused me of deliberately misreading her post … again. I’m not flaming MsPhD and I don’t want to get into a shitfight because I just don’t have the energy, but I thought it would be interesting to expand on my thoughts about some of the issues she brought up in her post because these are common misconceptions among postdocs.

The first issue is that experienced/senior postdocs are essentially operating as PIs without the official title and that they are fully aware of what the role of PI involves. MsPhD commented that "Aside from teaching, I've done everything they do- the grants, the mentoring, the papers, the university paperwork for safety clearance, purchasing equipment, purchasing supplies, serving on committees, giving talks at meetings, setting up collaborations, all of it. Teaching lectures is the only thing I haven't done."

If you’ve never read this post by DrugMonkey, you need to start there. Theoretically, the things that MsPhD listed are things that constitute the research side of a PI’s responsibilities but in reality, it’s so much more. I’m still learning all the in’s and out’s of things but having total and absolute responsibility for all of these things is substantially more difficult and time consuming than a postdoc realizes, particularly as a new PI. Each of these duties is a huge time-suck that can easily consume all of your time and energy. Trying to do all of these things from scratch, in addition to continuing to liaise with your postdoc mentor/lab to finish that work as well as dealing with people who are interested in working with/for you in your new role is exhausting.

And that doesn’t even include learning to navigate the political minefield that exists in the department as well as figuring out your role on the faculty totem pole – who’s going to be able to help you, who is planning to sabotage your plans, who can you ask for advice, who does nothing but play with smoke and mirrors, etc.

As to the teaching side of things … oh boy, don’t even get me started. MsPhD commented that "It makes me wonder if I'm just completely clueless about teaching, or if they really have it so easy that teaching is as bad as their stress ever gets? Maybe both?"

From my perspective, I knew that I was an effective teacher – I say this with quiet confidence as I have extensive formal training in education and years of successful teaching experiences at many different levels and in many different areas. But having to deal with the nuts and bolts of being a university educator was quite a shock and this was independent of the issues I’ve had with senior faculty. For those of you who think that teaching is a cushy way to make money, think again. If you think that teaching just involves talking for an hour or so here and there you really don't have a clue.

After you’ve taught the same course for a year or two, things get a lot easier but getting this shit together for the first time is a killer. For every hour of delivery for a new course, you can count on at least 3-5 hours of preparation and it doesn’t matter how well prepared you are, something always goes wrong – you aim the material at the wrong level, you mistakenly give conflicting information, the students misinterpret something you say, etc. You don’t usually find any of this out until the class is over or until you grade exams or papers by which time it’s usually too late.

Have you ever done a 40-50 minute research seminar? How long did that take to prepare and fine tune? Multiply that by the 2-5 hours of lectures/tutorials/labs you have each week and then by the 14 or 15 weeks in the semester and see if that seems easy.

And have you ever written an exam or designed the criteria for a term paper? Not quite as easy as you think – and this is coming from someone who has designed and written lots and lots of these in a previous existence.

As I commented on MsPhD’s post, "I had a ton of teaching and research experience before starting this position and am still overwhelmed about how much I need to learn and the skills I need to develop."

Finally, I want to make it clear that I’m not digging at MsPhD as I know that she and I typically agree to disagree. But I wanted to make the point that her views about what a PI actually does are not uncommon amongst postdocs. I am well aware of this because I was a postdoc and I had the same misconceptions. Until you're actually in a PI's position, you aren't aware of exactly what the job entails and as a postdoc all you see is the tip of the iceberg.

And let’s get another thing crystal clear – I’m not writing this post as a way of looking down on postdocs who aspire to faculty positions and this is not meant to come across as condescending (although I know it will to some, particularly MsPhD). If it does, I apologize as that wasn't my intention. If we were informally chatting about these issues, I would say exactly the same things. If you’re thinking about going to grad school or doing a postdoc, you ask students and postdocs about what it is they do and what’s really involved. As a new assistant professor, I’m just trying to tell it like it is. Whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you. But believe me when I say that my own perceptions of what’s actually involved in this position were not entirely accurate and that you have to learn and adapt as you go on.

30 comments:

  1. As a postdoc I had "done it all" just like MsPhD. When I was leaving to take up my TT position the chair of my postdoc department's parting words were "You haven't been trained to do what you are about to do." He was right.

    There are other big differences. As a postdoc you generally don't have to do all those other things and you're not responsible for funding, maintaining and running a lab. You don't have a bunch of people relying on you for their paychecks. As a PI you have no choice in those things. It's a whole different game.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AMEN! It's a completely different job. Sure, I did everything on the research side too and thought I had my shit together until I got about a month in and realized that becoming a PI is a lot like having a kid. Everyone tells you want to expect and you can be really great with kids, but until you're holding one that is yours for the first time you have no fucking clue what it is all about. I'm still clueless about a lot of this job and I've been barely keeping my head above water for 8 months now. AND I didn't teach the first semester and have only a single grad course this semester. I worked like hell as a postdoc, but for this job I had to kick it into a gear I didn't know I had or ever thought I would need.
    I'm not saying all this to scare people looking at TT positions, but the person Odyssey quoted was right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But I wanted to make the point that her views about what a PI actually does are not uncommon amongst postdocs. I am well aware of this because I was a postdoc and I had the same misconceptions. Until you're actually in a PI's position, you aren't aware of exactly what the job entails and as a postdoc all you see is the tip of the iceberg.Post-docs are completely fucking delusional about what PIs do. This is simply the way things work. There is nothing wrong with this, but to deny it is wack.

    People at a lower level in *any* profession *always* are deluded about what it takes to succeed at the next higher level. This is because they see what the people at the next level "do", and it looks simple. The problem with this kind of magical thinking is that success at the next level is not about what you "do", but how you think. And no one at the lower level sees any of that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Though only a n00b PhD student, I agree with Physioprof that the next 'stage' always looks easier. And it also has something to do with how High Performance you are. If you are a high performance undergrad you will most likely end up going to a high powered institution that will eat you up and spit you out for breakfast, precisely because you have 'what it takes' to be broken down and rebuilt the way they want you. It doesn't mean you weren't Super Prepared or a Complete Badass at your prior stage in life, it happens precisely because you were.

    I guess since I can only communicate efficiently in sports analogies: A star RB in HS is probably not going to go play in the Canadian league once he graduates. He will go to the NFL where they will proceed to kick his ass so that he can be an even greater player. This doesn't mean star RB didn't try to emulate NFL style workouts/regimes, etc, it means that he's a prodigy who's STILL not going to appreciate how hard it is until he's in the NFL, surrounded by NFL trainers, coaches and, most importantly, other players of his caliber .

    Just my n00b cents

    ReplyDelete
  5. Okay, this might be a dangerous venue to make this argument but I actually wanted to support the point that I saw MsPhD making. Her comment about "time post-PhD" was not, as far as I could tell, an argument that she wanted to tenured tomorrow. It was that after 5 years plus as a post-doc, there was a real possibility that it was time to move on and begin work as a PI -- whether it was to succeed or fail is irrelevant. It was being in limbo that was the problem.

    It's being widely read as an argument that PIs do nothing. In my previous life (in industry), I ended up being responsible for people and statistics groups. It was amazing how much effort it took to keep everything going and how much it impacted my ability to sit at my desk and code. Just the politics alone . . .

    But I accept that 5 or more years of training as a post-doc are likely reaching the limits of the development that the position can give a trainee. Given the low salary, it is time to move up or move elsewhere. I am not sure that extremely long post-doctoral fellowships benefit anybody.

    But maybe I am biased as a post-doc?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joseph: I don't flame people (except complete dumbfucks who deserve it) so this will never be a dangerous venue to air your thoughts.

    I didn't address all of the points here that MsPhD made in her post and am only talking about what a postdoc thinks a PI's job entails because I know that her views are common among other postdocs. The arguments I was having with her about the time spent as a postdoc are an entirely different issue and I agree that she and I are probably speaking at cross-purposes on that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi PiT: Yes, I think that you are correct in that we underestimate the value of training in all fields. Success is based on slow, hard work and determination.

    But I was thinking that this (small) element of the post was getting all of the attention. In industry, it was common for junior people to assume that they could do a senior job. It was always a disaster if these same people were promoted into it too quickly. I am sure that the same is true in science. Being a PI is definitely hard and I am sure that none of us is as ready as we would like to think.

    I think that part of it is that it is easy to criticize after the fact; anybody could do a job well if there was an option to "go back to a previously saved game" option in real life. :-)

    The one thing that I like about being a post-doc is not having the crushing responsibility of running a group. I suspect that it is coming but it has been a nice break to focus on just doing research.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you think that teaching just involves talking for an hour or so here and there you really don't have a clue.That is exactly what bothers me when people think about teaching - it's not an easy thing to do, let alone doing it right. It's a crap load of work, for very little return, but it's so important.

    As for the rest - I must be the opposite of most people, because one of the reasons I don't want to go into academia is because of how one is pulled in so many different directions as a PI. I don't want to deal with department politics, for example. gah.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Teaching for money? HAHA. yeah right. As if you will eer get paid for those hours when you put together the course, lectures and exams.... not even mentioning grading the hand ins and exams... I mean, i really like teaching but boy is it heavy workload?! (not to mention hunting down people who are supposed to "give one lecture" or "help out with the lab". And really, until you have stood in front of x number of students and realised that actually - you might have thought more about them and now you have to bring it down - ...

    you know what I mean, PiT?!

    _And that doesn’t even include learning to navigate the political minefield that exists in the department as well as figuring out your role on the faculty totem pole – who’s going to be able to help you, who is planning to sabotage your plans, who can you ask for advice, who does nothing but play with smoke and mirrors_

    IMHO this is the thing that most post docs/people in general miss. The political aspect of all the things that PIs do.... and the hierarchy in the department.

    I am not a PI (not do I think I want to be one) but the sheer stress of delegating work to others and trust their work at the same time as navigating committees, tt people and grant funding while teaching... yeah... maybe not for me....

    nice post though!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I recently started a TT position.

    I knew that there was going to be a bunch of shit that was new, however I was pretty shocked at the amount of it.

    Nothing like some on the job training! yeeehaaw!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nothing like some on the job training! yeeehaaw!Indeed. The sad irony of YFS's attitude is that she is correct that she probably has nothing more to learn as a post-doc that will be helpful to her as a PI, but for the opposite reason than she thinks. It's not that she has already learned everything she needs to know to be a PI; it's that at least 75% of one's thinking and effort as a PI involves things that post-doctoral training provides no relevant experience whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I second Prof Like Substance's AMEN! That's why the first post of my blog was about preparing for the birth of my science baby, since I could just tell things were NOT going to turn out like I planned. I too am constantly learning how to function, and I too did a 5-year postdoc, under a truly fantastic mentor who was completely transparent about everything to do with strategic planning as a PI and who involved us in as many parts of the process as possible.

    It's still absolutely, fundamentally different when the responsibility for every decision, action, success and failure ultimately comes down to you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm also a four year postdoc.

    In no way do I think the next stage is easier than the one I'm in now.

    I think I might be able to handle about 10% of what my boss pulls off.

    Maybe I'm the antithesis of the arrogant whinging postdoc though?

    -Antipodean

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nice post. Personally I prefer honesty, even if it is a little scary. Sugar-coating things never helps anyone.
    Watching my PI's try and juggle all the mundane university tasks, with mentoring the lab, teaching, traveling, getting money and making time for family is intimidating. What's worse is that it seems like while you can prepare for some of the tasks you will take on as a PI, the rest only get encountered after you take the job and at that point you are in a sink or swim situation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Watching my PI's try and juggle all the mundane university tasks, with mentoring the lab, teaching, traveling, getting money and making time for family is intimidating.Just to emphasize this point: it's not the *doing* that is so different as a PI; it's the *thinking*. Your entire mindset in relation to tactical and strategic planning is completely different as a PI than as post-doc. This is what YFS is so woefully deluded about.

    ReplyDelete
  16. it's not the *doing* that is so different as a PI; it's the *thinking*. Your entire mindset in relation to tactical and strategic planning is completely different as a PI than as post-doc.Exactly. Regardless of how senior or autonomous a postdoc is, ultimately responsibility for everything they do sits with their PI. It's the planning, designing, writing, organizing, developing, delegating, negotiating, networking and communicating, in addition to all the other -ing words in the dictionary like mentoring, supervising, teaching, etc that make a PI's role much more difficult than it may appear to an observer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In fact, you actually 'do' a lot less as a PI. The thinking, though... it's the juggling of multiple timeframes, short and long term agendas, and all across three or four major distinctive job roles...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes! I agree with the gist of the majority of comments here. I spent a number of years as a non-tenure track faculty member in which I had my own RO1 and research program, before moving to a TT position. Even as non-TT faculty, I had less than a full appreciation of what it really takes to succeed on the TT. Certainly, I had a better idea than your average postdoc since I learned how to run a research program as a PI, but there is so much more to maintaining a successful LONG-TERM career than just making sure your current experiments of interest get done. As others have pointed out, it does require a large shift in *thinking*. The strategizing required to keep a program going for year after year is a continual process. Add to this all the teaching/service burdens, politicking, etc. and you have a potentially overwhelming situation, especially for new faculty.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nice post and glad to have found your blog. I came here from MsPhD, who also makes some valid points, but her experiences are certainly different than mine have been as a young woman in science. I've had postdoc experience in both Europe and the US and even when I moved back down under for a non-tenured position, I never felt that I had already done it all. Ok, I was treated well as a postdoc (plenty of independence, and my former advisors are still some of my greatest advocates) but I also appreciated the time to focus just on research and I even missed it. I'm also seeing it from the other side now too, with a postdoc who is pretty certain that he has done it all, and doesn't understand how I can be so busy.
    What I do agree with is that the academic world has certainly got more competitive, no matter where you are in the world. I've only just got tenure (9 years post-PhD), but am often told how lucky I am to have it so soon. When I talk to my more senior colleagues they all agree that funding is harder to come by, the demands on time are greater, students have become more demanding and the academic landscape is changing at a faster rate and moving in different directions than it ever did before. Interestingly, this all seems to scare them more than it does me. Maybe it's because this is all I've known, and I'm not one to dwell on others experiences over my own. Sure, being a PI is hard work, but with good students and supportive colleagues, it's been a fun journey so far.

    ReplyDelete
  20. People are promoted to the level of their incompetence; academia is no different.

    It seems to me that one of the reasons many professors seem horrified by the idea of "leaving science" by taking an administrative position or, say, going to NIH as a PO, is that most PIs really are tapped out on their administrative capacities.
    So they use post-hoc rationalization to convince themselves the job they have is the most desirable.
    Really, PI is only one popular spot on the gradient between "maximal control over the experiments, minimal control over the direction of the field" and "minimal control over the experiments, maximal control over the direction of the field"; there's nothing magical about it.

    However, I say this with a keen awareness of *why* most profs are tapped out. It's Freakin' Hard to function the way they do!
    My advisor forgets minutia of what I do all the time. It's always frustrating when it happens (particularly when I've already told him something four or five times *sigh*).
    At the same time, when I think about the memory load of the minutia that he *does* remember, I wonder if I'd ever be able to handle it. And that's the easy stuff, mostly facts to retain; it's not even the politics, or the long term strategizing, or balancing being pulled in many different directions.

    CPP- so how do you think about things now? How do you identify the most important topics to work on? How do you make those critical choices on what's "important" vs. what is merely "urgent"? What in your life *was* relevant experience for this job?
    If PIs never talk about how they think about things, how are trainees supposed to understand how it's different from their own thinking, let alone how to adopt their own thinking to more effective strategies?
    If science has shown the benefits of metacognition, why are so many people (PIs and others) so reluctant to engage in it? Or is it that most people's thought processes simply aren't that verbalizable?

    ReplyDelete
  21. As someone about to start his first postdoc, I am always staggered by the blog war between postdocs saying how they are "just like PIs" and the PIs who "argue theirs is a much harder job". Both PIs and postdocs are supposed to be way above average intelligence. The debate doesn't reflect that....

    IT IS NOT POSTDOC VS PI.

    Don't you see? Its SCIENTISTS VS SOCIETY.

    Scientists want recognition for their efforts. Society is happy to abuse scientists by demanding that they work for nothing. Yes, no one owes a PhD a job, but scientists do not owe society a damn thing either.

    The power of social pressure, the requirement that scientists see their work as voluntary service, is then harnessed by the corporate university. The university bosses sit comfortably ensconced in their boardrooms and abuse ALL; from grad student to tenured prof. Then they gamble the university's endowment on the stock market. The university is the true feudal lord, it pays what it wants to, pulls out "tuition" from grad students' money... even though its the PI and his lab people who did all the work..

    Why is the university able to get away with this? For two reasons:
    1) There will never be social outcry. Scientists are supposed to be slaves to society... period! Scientists are drawn from the ranks of the kids who made everyone else feel stupid in school and college. Scientists come from the ranks of TAs who seem to have some power over undergrads despite being only a couple of years older all the way to the professors who gave away bad grades. Not much chance to get sympathy.

    2) As this comment thread shows, scientists make it harder for themselves. Look at postdocs and PIs going at each other. No ...dear senior postdocs.. you are NOT doing the job a PI does... and why should you? You do not have the same pay..the same seniority...and probably not the same qualifications...

    And PIs.. are you telling me it took you 5 yrs of grad school... 4 yrs of postdoc and a whole year on TT to figure out the tautological statement that the job of a PI is different from that of a postdoc?

    Don't you see that the system is exploiting EVERYONE? You say that postdocs are not being oppressed, nor being paid unfairly. You're right... but ONLY IN COMPARISON TO YOU... Has it occurred to you that BOTH of you are being exploited? Have you pondered the frightening possibility that the reason the job of a PI can feel harder than that of a postdoc is because the university is being even more unfair to you than it is to the postdocs?

    A PI's wage should be roughly 3 times of what he gets. A postdoc should get at least twice as much as he gets.. A grad student should get abt 50% more. By making the system even more unfair to PIs than it is to the postdocs... the university happily sows scorn in your heart towards postdocs and who guess who gains the most...

    Do you realize what happened here? As you go higher in the ladder, the degree of exploitation (relative to qualifications) increases... As a result each group wants to make it even harder for the one just below and the victims work to increase the exploitation.

    The university saves by using slave labour. Further, a cleverly constructed hierarchy among the slaves eliminates the need to hire overseers to crack the whip. Then the Assistant Deans, the Deans, the Associate Assistant Deans, the Assistant Associate Visiting Deans, the deputy assistant associate provost and their ken can go have fun on W St.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And to all proud PIs:

    "AMEN! It's a completely different job."

    "But I wanted to make the point that her views about what a PI actually does are not uncommon amongst postdocs. I am well aware of this because I was a postdoc and I had the same misconceptions. Until you're actually in a PI's position, you aren't aware of exactly what the job entails and as a postdoc all you see is the tip of the iceberg."

    "Nothing like some on the job training! yeeehaaw!"

    You realize that you are actually celebrating the fact that you could not train your postdocs for the job you said they were being trained for?

    Did you just say that "these views are not uncommon among postdocs"? Do you realize that it is PIs who select postdocs? Doesn't this mean you are not actually training the postdocs and that you are not even bothered by your failure to do so?

    Come on... surely you couldn't be proud of your failure to train them. In that case, the only possibility left is that you didn't plan to actually train them.

    Now, why would you hire a postdoc you do not plan to train? Slave labour is my guess but I will wait for the great people to explain their intentions...

    ReplyDelete
  23. As someone about to start his first postdoc, I am always staggered by the blog war between postdocs saying how they are "just like PIs" and the PIs who "argue theirs is a much harder job". Both PIs and postdocs are supposed to be way above average intelligence. The debate doesn't reflect that....

    It’s not a blog war, it’s just discussion. What you fail to comprehend is the fact that postdocs really aren’t aware of what a PI actually does. That’s the point everyone is trying to make. ALL of the PIs that have commented on the various posts that dealt with this topic have ALL said the same thing … and ALL of the postdocs said the PIs were wrong. What you need to remember is that all of the PI bloggers used to be postdocs so we have all experienced what it’s like to see the PI’s role from the outside and then actually experienced it first hand ourselves. Until you’ve been in both situations, you won’t appreciate the difference.

    You realize that you are actually celebrating the fact that you could not train your postdocs for the job you said they were being trained for?
    Did you just say that "these views are not uncommon among postdocs"? Do you realize that it is PIs who select postdocs? Doesn't this mean you are not actually training the postdocs and that you are not even bothered by your failure to do so
    ?

    Again, you have not been following the discussion. It is IMPOSSIBLE to fully train a postdoc to be a PI. A postdoc works for a PI and the PI has ultimate responsibility for EVERYTHING. A PI can train a postdoc to be independent and transfer a lot of the day-to-day responsibilities but the PI will always be the one making the final decision … that’s just the nature of the PI/postdoc roles.

    You said you are about to start your first postdoc which just goes to show that you are under the same misconception as all the other postdocs. I am fully aware of this mindset because I was under the same delusions only 6 months ago before I finished my postdoc. Let us know how you feel in 4-5 years time when you are a new PI yourself and see if your perspective is still the same – I guarantee you it won’t be.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am not a scientist nor do i play one on TV. I am an attorney, and my situation is not that similar to the one you are discussing, but it has points that are close. I work in a certain "unit" of my office, we are pretty independent of the office as a whole, but still are bound by the usual constraits and politics of our office. My boss has been with the office for 10 yrs longer that I have, but I am the longest serving member of the "unit." When she took over she asked me a lot of nuts and bolts questions that I knew the answer to and she didn't. After two years I still probably know a bit more nut and bolts than she does, but I tell you one thing for sure. I would not have her job for all the money in the world! She has to deal with the politics, the office squabbles, the asking for grant money shit that I would be a miserable failure at doing. So i guess the moral is walk a mile in their shoes before you think you can do better.

    ReplyDelete
  25. the moral is walk a mile in their shoes before you think you can do better.

    Exactly!

    ReplyDelete
  26. thanks for the exactly, though now I suspect I will be on MsPhd's enemies list. At least I won't be alone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I too thought that, as a postdoc, I had already done it all. I had written extensive portions of proposals, so for sure I would know how to write one of my own. I had a general idea of what my research plan was going to be for the next few years (it eventually turned out to be something else, but that's all right).
    I had taught as a PD, even the dreaded large introductory physics courses.
    In part I had even been involved in departmental politics as a PD. So, what could possibly being an assistant professor bring my way that I had not seen before ?

    And then students of all levels started knocking on my door asking me if I had projects for them. That is when it dawned on me that this was different. I agree with CPP all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "It is IMPOSSIBLE to fully train a postdoc to be a PI."

    Seriously, I agree. The job of a PI is so unique, so magnificent, so grand...that no training on this planet, no matter how long nor given by whom, could possibly prepare a person for it. And if there are postdocs who disagree with this, we can always find an attorney who understands academia much more than a postdoc does, right?

    A postdoc can never be "fully trained" to become a PI nor is any postdoc "wholly unprepared" to become a PI. It is not about extremes; it is about the part in between.

    And if postdocs are becoming PIs only to find they are woefully unprepared, the fault does lie with the PIs who were supposed to fashion them. Is it possible that PIs are simply shirking responsibility or that, much like 99% of people in the world, you have an overblown impression of the magnitude of what you do?

    I wonder if TP2 is out there, grumbling somewhere about the appalling skills of new assistant professors, who "can never be fully trained" to do what a tenured professor does.

    Gosh, I knew biologists are not good at hard logic, but "impossible to fully train" passes for an argument... :) Good one...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anon 10.05: I'm having trouble trying to figure out the tone of your comment. I read it as you saying I think the job of PI is so grandiose and difficult that nobody but myself and the other current PIs can do it ... if this was your intention you are gravely mistaken.

    If you had read the title of the post you would know that I was referring to what postdocs perceive the role of a PI to be not that they couldn't be trained or weren't capable of being a PI. I have been open about the fact that the myriad demands and responsibilities of the job took me by surprise and that I still have a lot to learn. Postdocs who fail to recognize that there is a gap between their current level of skill/knowledge and that needed at the PI level should reflect on their own transitions from high school to undergrad to grad school to postdoc. There's always a steep learning curve from one level to the next. That's the point I was making.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This 'PI versus postdoc' debate is not helping - the important point is the implications it has for the whole scientific system.

    PIs do a very different job from postdocs, in most cases. There are too many postdocs, and not all of them are good. PIs are often being asked to do more than is physically possible. This combination raises two issues.

    First, how do you transition from postdoc to PI? You can speak to current PIs and find out what they actually do. You can get as much experience in management, grant applications, departmental politics as you can. However, many postdocs don't have the opportunity to do this (e.g. exclusion from decision-making committees). So at the end of the day, you will still have to make a huge jump to your first PI position.
    The question therefore is, how do we select people who will be best able to make that jump, for new PI positions? I would argue that the deciding factor in practice is usually who you know (with some influence from subject fit). You end up with an 'old boys' club' of PIs who introduce a select few of their postdocs to the right people, and 'show them the ropes', sharing tips and advice for PI-ship. Thus, selection for PI positions can seem very unfair and random to other postdocs who don't get PI positions.

    Second, it's a hugely steep learning curve for a beginning PI, and sometimes, they don't make it. This means a lot of PIs simply don't do their job properly. Some will be weeded out by not continuing to get funding. However, a good few remain for several years if not longer. Some are supported by friends higher up; others get funding based on an initial few high impact papers, which often depend on a talented postdoc, who then leaves. Over time, these PIs will not be successful, but in the meantime, they've 'trained' quite a few PhD students and postdocs - but not given them any useful mentoring or connections. This is again a situation that creates a lot of resentment: some postdocs could do better than these PIs, and they know it. It also contributes to generating mediocre students and postdocs; and sadly, many of these people don't know they're mediocre!

    The result is a lot of dissatisfaction all round, and unproductive arguments such as 'who has it harder, PIs or postdocs'.

    So yes, PIs, do emphasise to postdocs that you do much more than what you did as a senior postdoc. But also, mentor your postdocs and students as much as you can. And work hard to change the system from the inside - make sure that your selections are based on scientific merit, and DON'T take on too many students or postdocs, hire technicians instead.

    - Maggie.

    ReplyDelete

Go ahead and say whatever you like. Comments will only be removed if they are spam or are of a vicious/derogatory nature.

Website Hit Counter