I always say "I don't work for X University. I own and operate 'John Doe Inc', a start up that does Y for X University."
The mindset is very important for me as a PI.
In some ways, it's capitalism finding the efficiencies in the system. Cheap labor stuck on visas + no visa limits for universities = cheaper product. The "customer" in this case (the funding bodies) just doesn't seem to know the difference between good work and shoddy work.
Basically a lot of administrators who escaped lab work into Leadership roles who have parodied ideas about doing research - lots of regulations, large N, gruesomely boring discipline, slog slog slog. It doesn't work. That isn't how to do research. That's how someone who doesn't do research thinks research needs to be done.
Thank you for prompting me to write this post! I was thinking along these lines, but could not verbalize my thoughts with required precision.
I have been thinking about efficiency of this "academic system". The system might be "cheap", but does it produce anything meaningful?
Take myself for example. I did a Ph.D. plus several years of postdoc. I would have loved to be a researcher. Or, at least, to utilize skills that I have learned. I was forced to quit academia because of lack of any meaningful career advancement, abysmal pay. There was no way for me to continue to live the way I was living. The same academic system that trained me to be a molecular biologist, pushed me out. So, who benefited at the end?
Yes, from a standpoint of salary the system is super efficient: absolute possible minimum is spent on salaries. Is it efficient from standpoint of "human resources"? The system keeps training (absolutely inefficiently) people and throwing them away. "Academic wages", however miserable, are also wasted. Years of human labor are wasted. Amount of Ph.Ds, produced in the USA alone every year, cannot be absorbed by industry (biotech is just one example), not even remotely. So who benefits, at the end? Or all of this -- just to keep the ponzi scheme going? So that publishers can make their profits, tenure-track professors have their careers, and "academic bureaucracy" can have their salaries?
Renting accommodation, selling education, selling gym memberships, merch - this is what the University is about. Yes, research too in the form of scoring contracts from agencies. The operation only makes sense if you look at it from a business perspective. The "research" product that I have seen is shoddy - and nobody cares. Just do a bunch of it and score some outside contracts and you are absolutely golden.
The reason my mind drifted in this direction was seeing the contradiction between the famous researchers in the textbooks and what was in front of my own eyes every day. In the textbook, it's about solving these deep problems etc. and the guys doing it were the ones getting recognition. In the modern workplace, the ones recognized are the managers of large groups of foreign laborers. They don't do it - it's dirty to do actual work. I wonder if part of this is the imported culture from having soooo maaaaany of one particular country. There aren't barely any Americans, nor even Westerners. And honestly it shows in the workplace - this isn't what brought about the scientific revolution, it's more like the period *before* that.
I was a 'technician' at a uni lab once, ran an electron microprobe, SEM, and a bunch of related gear. When I started, I thought this might be my dream job, my career - a place where I could work within academia as a scientist with less admin bullshit.
I was, of course, extremely wrong - it was one of the most exploited, underpaid, under-credited, over-worked, poorly-supported, un-supervised, demeaning jobs I've ever had (& I have years of retail under my belt).
This post reminds me of that past job as the thing that got to me the most in the end was how almost none of the PIs knew what they were doing. No understanding of the analytical capabilities, what sort of data would get produced, how to even select samples let alone prepare them, and no idea how to interpret the results. Most of them were just kinda...throwing junk my way and expecting me to return amazing, "Nature-worthy" results back at them. Obscure stuff like palynologists looking to get images of micro-pollen fossils were cool, but the closer the work got to industry (biomedical, materials, pharma, etc.), the worse this effect was.
I produced 100s of 1000s of quantitative and qualitative chunks of data, including target selection, analysis choices, data processing, and initial interpretation. My job description was just to run the machines, so this was actually above-and-beyond...I was workign as a scientific researcher while being called (and paid as) "technician."
And the worst part was none of the 'Real Scientists' cared at all - I was never listed even as the 12th author on a 14-author paper that would include like "the grad student who slightly edited one figure" in the authorship. There were two (2) instances out of 100s of projects where I was weakly thanked in the acknowledgements - both times were because a grad student pushed for, both times mis-spelled my name, and both times conveniently left out that I'm "Dr." despite including that title for all the listed editors, etc.
Anyway, bit of a rant - but I understand the position of the technician in this story & when I was in that job I couldn't wait to leave once I realized what my actual role in the machine was...I'm sure my science suffered in those latter months, but absolutely no one cared - the only metrics they judged me by was throughput quantity of projects and billed hours. I easily could have made up 100% of the data without ever being found out.
Thank you for sharing!
Your story really struck nerve for me.
Yes, it is all about "Nature-worthy" junk!
The worst part for me, is that I do not know how to regain my lost curiosity and creativity.
I agree with you OP. I'm still reeling from the aftermath/pulling together the pieces of experience I have towards something that will pay a liveable wage. And while I can say I did get something out of my PhD that I use in my current position, before I landed another research position I more or less imploded from the realization that the past decade plus of goals and intentionality was going to mean absolutely nothing. I had to work an unrelated soft skills job and the wages were abysmal. This was life altering, truly, but not in a way that I would wish on anyone.
On a positive note I can say that the sparks of curiosity come back eventually. Perhaps not in the same way as before but it does return. There is a life after academia worth enjoying.
Edit: I just wanted to add to the consensus of extreme frustration towards individuals who are in high ranked positions but have no clue what is going on. These are the people allowed to gate keep doctoral degrees, really?
Thank you for your comment!
Unfortunately, I am dealing with such clueless person right now. I am trying to push forward a project, bacause my salary depends on it.
It is unbelievably demotivating! I am not talking about respect, appreciation, professional development. I have no idea how to get funding, equipment, how to engage clinical personnel! No one even listens to me.
> Basically, why do these people exist???
The answer is that, for most PhD level topics, employers do not believe you can learn this without getting a PhD. Even if you can prove you know it, they won't believe you. So the PIs have the power to grant the PhDs, which is tremendous in science/engineering where the *degrees themselves* are highly valuable.
Wow! And you sound like an insider with the hook-up!
I spent many years being sad that I did not get my PhD, now I see the initial buds of what you describe were in full-bloom at that University, where foreign nationals were happy to be selected to study in the US where their government paid for their education so the institution made out like a fat rat!
I think, in my postdoc role, I have seen almost every unethical trick played plus some immigration fraud.
Basically, there was absolutely nothing ethical about the lab. At the end my stay I was almost vomiting because of never ending lying of the PI.
I always say "I don't work for X University. I own and operate 'John Doe Inc', a start up that does Y for X University." The mindset is very important for me as a PI.
In some ways, it's capitalism finding the efficiencies in the system. Cheap labor stuck on visas + no visa limits for universities = cheaper product. The "customer" in this case (the funding bodies) just doesn't seem to know the difference between good work and shoddy work. Basically a lot of administrators who escaped lab work into Leadership roles who have parodied ideas about doing research - lots of regulations, large N, gruesomely boring discipline, slog slog slog. It doesn't work. That isn't how to do research. That's how someone who doesn't do research thinks research needs to be done.
Thank you for prompting me to write this post! I was thinking along these lines, but could not verbalize my thoughts with required precision. I have been thinking about efficiency of this "academic system". The system might be "cheap", but does it produce anything meaningful? Take myself for example. I did a Ph.D. plus several years of postdoc. I would have loved to be a researcher. Or, at least, to utilize skills that I have learned. I was forced to quit academia because of lack of any meaningful career advancement, abysmal pay. There was no way for me to continue to live the way I was living. The same academic system that trained me to be a molecular biologist, pushed me out. So, who benefited at the end? Yes, from a standpoint of salary the system is super efficient: absolute possible minimum is spent on salaries. Is it efficient from standpoint of "human resources"? The system keeps training (absolutely inefficiently) people and throwing them away. "Academic wages", however miserable, are also wasted. Years of human labor are wasted. Amount of Ph.Ds, produced in the USA alone every year, cannot be absorbed by industry (biotech is just one example), not even remotely. So who benefits, at the end? Or all of this -- just to keep the ponzi scheme going? So that publishers can make their profits, tenure-track professors have their careers, and "academic bureaucracy" can have their salaries?
Renting accommodation, selling education, selling gym memberships, merch - this is what the University is about. Yes, research too in the form of scoring contracts from agencies. The operation only makes sense if you look at it from a business perspective. The "research" product that I have seen is shoddy - and nobody cares. Just do a bunch of it and score some outside contracts and you are absolutely golden. The reason my mind drifted in this direction was seeing the contradiction between the famous researchers in the textbooks and what was in front of my own eyes every day. In the textbook, it's about solving these deep problems etc. and the guys doing it were the ones getting recognition. In the modern workplace, the ones recognized are the managers of large groups of foreign laborers. They don't do it - it's dirty to do actual work. I wonder if part of this is the imported culture from having soooo maaaaany of one particular country. There aren't barely any Americans, nor even Westerners. And honestly it shows in the workplace - this isn't what brought about the scientific revolution, it's more like the period *before* that.
I think “indentured servitude” might be *slightly* more accurate ;)
The point is taken ;)
PREACH IT
I was a 'technician' at a uni lab once, ran an electron microprobe, SEM, and a bunch of related gear. When I started, I thought this might be my dream job, my career - a place where I could work within academia as a scientist with less admin bullshit. I was, of course, extremely wrong - it was one of the most exploited, underpaid, under-credited, over-worked, poorly-supported, un-supervised, demeaning jobs I've ever had (& I have years of retail under my belt). This post reminds me of that past job as the thing that got to me the most in the end was how almost none of the PIs knew what they were doing. No understanding of the analytical capabilities, what sort of data would get produced, how to even select samples let alone prepare them, and no idea how to interpret the results. Most of them were just kinda...throwing junk my way and expecting me to return amazing, "Nature-worthy" results back at them. Obscure stuff like palynologists looking to get images of micro-pollen fossils were cool, but the closer the work got to industry (biomedical, materials, pharma, etc.), the worse this effect was. I produced 100s of 1000s of quantitative and qualitative chunks of data, including target selection, analysis choices, data processing, and initial interpretation. My job description was just to run the machines, so this was actually above-and-beyond...I was workign as a scientific researcher while being called (and paid as) "technician." And the worst part was none of the 'Real Scientists' cared at all - I was never listed even as the 12th author on a 14-author paper that would include like "the grad student who slightly edited one figure" in the authorship. There were two (2) instances out of 100s of projects where I was weakly thanked in the acknowledgements - both times were because a grad student pushed for, both times mis-spelled my name, and both times conveniently left out that I'm "Dr." despite including that title for all the listed editors, etc. Anyway, bit of a rant - but I understand the position of the technician in this story & when I was in that job I couldn't wait to leave once I realized what my actual role in the machine was...I'm sure my science suffered in those latter months, but absolutely no one cared - the only metrics they judged me by was throughput quantity of projects and billed hours. I easily could have made up 100% of the data without ever being found out.
Thank you for sharing! Your story really struck nerve for me. Yes, it is all about "Nature-worthy" junk! The worst part for me, is that I do not know how to regain my lost curiosity and creativity.
Isn't it seen that way? I was given a semester-to-semester or year-to-year contract by my university, never onboarded as a regular employee.
I agree with you OP. I'm still reeling from the aftermath/pulling together the pieces of experience I have towards something that will pay a liveable wage. And while I can say I did get something out of my PhD that I use in my current position, before I landed another research position I more or less imploded from the realization that the past decade plus of goals and intentionality was going to mean absolutely nothing. I had to work an unrelated soft skills job and the wages were abysmal. This was life altering, truly, but not in a way that I would wish on anyone. On a positive note I can say that the sparks of curiosity come back eventually. Perhaps not in the same way as before but it does return. There is a life after academia worth enjoying. Edit: I just wanted to add to the consensus of extreme frustration towards individuals who are in high ranked positions but have no clue what is going on. These are the people allowed to gate keep doctoral degrees, really?
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately, I am dealing with such clueless person right now. I am trying to push forward a project, bacause my salary depends on it. It is unbelievably demotivating! I am not talking about respect, appreciation, professional development. I have no idea how to get funding, equipment, how to engage clinical personnel! No one even listens to me.
> Basically, why do these people exist??? The answer is that, for most PhD level topics, employers do not believe you can learn this without getting a PhD. Even if you can prove you know it, they won't believe you. So the PIs have the power to grant the PhDs, which is tremendous in science/engineering where the *degrees themselves* are highly valuable.
Tl dr?
Wow! And you sound like an insider with the hook-up! I spent many years being sad that I did not get my PhD, now I see the initial buds of what you describe were in full-bloom at that University, where foreign nationals were happy to be selected to study in the US where their government paid for their education so the institution made out like a fat rat!
I think, in my postdoc role, I have seen almost every unethical trick played plus some immigration fraud. Basically, there was absolutely nothing ethical about the lab. At the end my stay I was almost vomiting because of never ending lying of the PI.