![]() In this light, cuts to science funding (like those we have seen recently in the US) could be an opportunity. As one reader wrote in response to that Economist article: "The PhD student is someone who forgoes current income in order to forgo future income." But if some of the surplus resulting from a slash in professorial salaries flowed down to PhDs and postdocs, then entry level professors would be put in a better financial position. Today's professors probably already earn too little, after so many years of being underpaid. Reduction in salaries for tenured staff will create new professorial appointments and reduce the imbalance between the number of temporary researchers and professors, while smaller research units will favour better supervision of PhD candidates and reduce fixed costs. And however grim this may sound to today's professors and those postdocs close to a permanent role, the benefits might appeal to future professors much more. Wages of these academic administrators, then, don't deserve to sit even at 50%. Some department chairs merely take note of advancements generated from the institutes they preside over, but co-author papers nonetheless. Top-tier staff write proposals, manage funds and coordinate subaltern research units and are sometimes scarcely involved with the generation, presentation and discussion of results which is the core purpose of science. Political and managerial skills are equally essential, and nurtured for the sake of tenure, not science. The knowledge acquired before (both theoretical and practical) still counts, but the job looks quite different. ![]() After tenure, natural scientists move out of the lab and into an office from where they supervise the research of their team members. They too are doing something different from their previous jobs. If there are solid reasons for PhDs being paid half of what they deserve, then the same hold good for professors. It's not because policymakers are greedy but because it would mean a reduction of PhDs and thus a slowdown of science.Ī second option wouldn't hinder research, and might even enhance it: cut the salary of professors by half. Realistically though, this is never going to happen. A remedy for the resulting scarcity of resources would be stricter selection so that only the best candidates started a PhD. The most obvious is: raise the salary of PhD students. And contributing to the advancement of knowledge requires a certain naive idealism, right? But does this mean it's okay to exploit highly educated individuals ( probably heavily in debt)? No. PhD candidates are at their infancy in science and being trained to do something different from their education to date – lessons in theory combined with practical labwork – as they move into more independent, innovative research. PhD candidates are earning a degree, which shouldn't come for free, and demands motivation and not a little self-denial – including financially. The number of PhDs, meanwhile, is inflated and international competition is fierce. Equipment and consumables are costly and have a substantial impact on future budget setting. There could be several reasons for this discrepancy. Lab devices are meant to last years – but, hell, what about the work of PhD students in a system where knowledge is incremental? It's depressing to think that the overall salary of a PhD candidate is less than the cost of much lab equipment. Although postgraduates are crucial to the generation, discussion and dissemination of knowledge, 50% pay (i.e half of what they deserve) is standard for PhDs in natural sciences and not even guaranteed in the arts and humanities. PhD students and postdocs are the working class of academic research and paid accordingly. ![]() All of which result in, if not professorship, then potential heavy drinking. The years of academic slog to work your way up to a full tenure slot (professorship? ha – dream on!) are not much different from the work of a PhD in terms of relentless benchwork (pipetting hand disease) and unceasing literature research (pound head on desk), served on a fixed menu with professional uncertainty (please hire: desperate).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |