See this poll on: https://poll.fm/5927535/embed
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
There is a point I did not see above (although I did not read the comments carefully). The advantages of changing locations/institutions is the demonstrate that the applicant can be successful in multiple environments and effective at transitioning.
With very few exceptions, people obtaining a permanent faculty position (or upper level industry) will change institutions and most likely cities. It is disruptive. People who are not effective at transitioning can have problems both professionally and personally. It's all about being able to start a new and NOT be distracted.
Strict adherence to inclusive or exclusive training/hiring rules is irrational. There are occasionally exceptional individuals for whom retention as faculty members at their Ph.D. and Post-doctoral training institutions is beneficial for both parties. Nevertheless, the question posed in the poll goes beyond the issue raised in the letter by Cohen.
The letter advocates that it could be good for a recent Ph.D. to take a post-doctoral position at the same university. This is reasonable for the young scientist for all the reasons mentioned by Cohen. It could also be reasonable for the new lab, if the young scientist brings a new competence into the lab.
I argue, however, that at the level of hiring faculty from within, the situation becomes much more asymmetrical. For the post-doc to get a faculty position at the same university where s/he has already received training may be a good thing. They know the system and the players. Other family issues are also much easier if left in situ than moving across the country (or world). On the other hand, when is it in the best interest of the department to hire someone who has gotten their training in labs that are already at the same institution? In exceptional cases, hiring from within may be the best option. More often, however, hiring a new professor who brings training in approaches and concepts not already present in the department or at the institution will bring the biggest benefit to the members of the department.
Anyone who is categorically opposed to keeping new PhDs as post docs is wrong. While there are situations where it is undesirable, there are also times when it is the best thing to do, both in the best interests of the department, and the post doc.
I am an extreme example: I took my B.S., M.S., and PhD, all at the same institution, then took a post doc for one year before joining the faculty as assistant professor. Seven years later, I was a tenured full professor at the same place where I am now emeritus.
I had a successful career, as measured by papers published, honors bestowed and unsolicited offers of jobs at other institutions, so I can confidently say it did not hurt me to stay in one place. For the same reasons I can say I was a positive influence on my university.
I certainly was not in any danger of developing a parochial outlook. How could I? After all, physics research (my field) is international. In a department of about 30 faculty I was surrounded by colleagues and friends who came from a large variety of institutions, foreign and domestic. Further, I interacted with very many other physicists outside of my own department at scientific conferences, and through research collaborations. In addition, in a career of forty years, I worked at other institutions, foreign and domestic, over five years on leaves of absence.
I put my own case as evidence that sometimes it is mutually beneficial for the university and the graduate to stay together, but I know of other examples. At the same time it is clear that too much of that sort of thing can be dangerous, especially in a small department.
Where have we seen the least adherence to the practice of making graduates and post-docs go elsewhere? My quick thoughts run toward Caltech, MIT, Harvard and Yale. I'd like to see a more rigorous tally.
It is understandable why staying at the same location is appealing for a person. But if individuals do not attend/work at other institutions it can actually weaken a group. If you stay at the same location people begin to think alike which stifles the advancement of research. Besides the decreased advancement of science by a group there are also political alliances that are formed. These political alliances between former PI, and new faculty (former student) create divided groups which further degrades progress within a group. I believe if your goals are to do the best science and contribute positively to science that changes in institutions is critical part of the learning process and benefits sustainable groups.
A few comments:
1. Why is a broad range of experience only required for early-career investigators? It seems to me that the folks who need the most shaking up are the tenured faculty who have been doing the same research for 20 years. The policy should be applied evenly to all levels of experience. If you want an R01 renewal, move your lab to a new institution. (This comment is mostly tongue-in-cheek; I'm trying to highlight the absurdity of requiring post-docs and new faculty to move "just because".)
2. I find the "inbred" designation of those who complete more than one stage of their career at the same institution very ignorant. As another commenter suggested, why not judge someone on the breadth of their experience, not their address?
3. Speaking of enormous personal sacrifice --- When deciding between post-doc offers, I did the rough calculation of my finances in different locations vs. staying in the same institution (top 10 in NIH funding!!!, reasonable cost of living) and living with my partner. $10000 per year. Yes, I have $10000 more per year to invest toward my retirement, pay off undergraduate student loan debt, maybe eat something other than ramen noodles, and perhaps replace my crappy 1996 car. I sacrificed enough for graduate school -- I'm tired of being a science martyr.
4. Finally, my opinion is that this policy is blatantly sexist towards women PhDs and discriminatory against those who have families. Women are still the primary care-givers in most households. We can't ask our partners and children and aging parents to come along for the ride the way the previous generation of PhDs--mostly men--did. It is not feasible. We can't all be Barbara McClintock.
These 'traditions' originated when Science was a much smaller enterprise, there was no internet and natural mobility and collaborations much lower than now. Folk certanly need to 'get out more', but that does not have to mean going for a full-on 2-year postdoc to another place. As Cohen says, most places have MASSES of local expertise if you have the wit and energy to seek it. And local Institutions might certainly wish to foster it - it is much cheap to nurture a budding interdisciplinary star than to buy one in...
I obtained my BS and PhD and used an NSF Postdoctoral fellowship at the same institution, the University of Minnesota. At a large insitution like the U of MN, with its mulitple departments and programs, together with the opportunities to interact internationally at meetings and on joint research programs, there is every opportunity for broad interactions, both professionally and personally. All things being equal (which they seldom are), there may be some value in an initial faculty position at a different institution, but all too often the move may have a greater negative impact due to personal issues than a positive value due to broader professional interactions.
I think it depends on the specific situation whether moving on is a necessary step. Some students/post docs may easily fall into the comfort of the "known" world and won't continue to grow, but some who may want to stay for personal reasons will thrive in the same "institution", but not the same lab (or a collaborators lab)
Personally, I am one of those who stayed in the same institution (family keeps me in the area) but switched fields completely to do my post doc. My post doc lab is COMPLETELY different from my PhD lab. I am challenged every day and have my own expertise to offer to my colleagues. My connections in my old department are useful, and yet I'm meeting a whole new set of people.
I also agree with the commenter who referred to the moving "requirement" as a risk factor for "brain drain". My husband has a thriving career in our home city and if my moving somewhere else was required of me to further my career I would probably end up dropping out of science or simply not advancing. I have enough self confidence to assure you that would be a waste.
I feel that an institution trying to uphold this 'rule,' is a waste of time and money for both the institution and the student. While networking is a big part of being able to improve your research quality and take it to newer routes you may not have known about without your web of contacts, moving locations simply to move locations is unnecessary. I heard this 'rule,' said again and again, but never heard any real reason behind it aside from 'networking.' Maybe this was the best way to network before we entered the future, but rest assured this is the future now, so I can talk to, connect with, and see pretty much anyone doing research throughout the world.
I do not believe there should be a "rule" per se, but in probably the significant majority instances moving (at least for a student or postdoc) is better scientifically for both the person moving as well as the institution gaining the outside perspective. Inbred science often does not turn out well.
I hope that people understand that I am not arguing that "moving on" is fundamentally bad. I could even be convinced (by distressingly missing data) that it was the correct move in the majority of cases. My point instead, is that we should not make this recommendation by reflex, and certainly not by policy. It is my understanding that trainees are _required_ to move out of their training labs at the NIH, for example. When I state that these policies are as "arbitrary as they are damaging" I am equating the two. That is, the damage is a result of the arbitrariness.
As I noted in my letter, there are many arguments for staying: both personal and professional. It is simply not right that choosing a career in science should demand enormous personal sacrifice, for example.
I have received quite a number of emails to my university address on this. The tone is different in these, but I can't really say why. In them, people are moved to tell me their personal traumas from being moved about. Lots of "thank-yous" from students who wish it had been said before. I hope that they will post here as well.
I have also been reminded that the principles discussed here play quite differently for non-US scientists. There are many reasons for this, but the high points include the magnified potential for inbreeding in more limited institutions, the lack of access to instrumentation resources in the home country, the need to understand the realities of English-language scientific publication and review, and cultural issues of prestige that can greatly affect a young scientist's career. These writers remind me also that the personal cost is proportionately higher for international scientists, they are further from their social support systems, and the US policy on immigration makes it exceptionally unlikely that they will be able to have anything more than a temporary stay in a US lab.
I would have posed the poll question differently as well (I wasn't asked). Perhaps, "Is the standard practice of applying for postdoc and new faculty positions outside one’s home institution the best advice for everyone? Should it be made a policy?"
On a personal note, it is gratifying to see a discussion.
Generally, one should move to gain a fresh perspective. And generally, faculty should set a considerably higher bar for internal than external job applicants to avoid reinforcing institutional biases and favoritism, which are pervasive and harmful.
Sometimes people are forced by personal considerations to work in the same place as they studied, but that is not the best move professionally.
Well here it warrants to be seen from both perspectives
Firstly from post-doc or grad student perspective, I think it is in the best interest to move to another, hopefully better institution from the perspective of your field of interest. Isn't that the goal in life anyways? In research you do want to learn new ways of objective thinking which will enable you to ask right questions. Also, staying at the same institution would highly limit your sphere of influence and networking. Having said that I understand genuine reasons for staying like a spouse in the area or familial or other personal reasons and so if a candidate is staying for any such reasons it is completely understandable and should not be held against him or her.
From the perspective of the institution, again my understanding is that if a department or institution is hiring and want to broaden its approach which is in the best interest of the department and the institution it would be fruitful to hire someone non local. Having said that each institution also has certain core strengths in any field and so hiring local or outside people to build or maintain that core strength isq certainly foreseeable. I think the most successful institutions are ones that are able to strick a perfect balance between the two.
There is a lot of worry associated with hiring for a faculty position, because of its permanent nature. This person could be here for the next 20-30 years - are we getting the right guy? The familiarity with the internal candidates leads to bias ("at least we know he is not crazy, gets along with people well, and smart too"). But the result of this 'safety first' mentality is that you often end up with sub-optimal candidates and inbreeding. Th same thing happens at the postdoc level, to a lesser extent. If the senior faculty take a slight risk and hire more promising outsiders, this could be avoided and everyone would broden their horizons.
Beyond "perfect training at home" utopia, inbreeding is definitely a problem in universities. It creates a "mafia" environment, where outsiders (people with "moving" experience) have no place. Many times inbred university laws are tailored as such that people which do not belong to the club cannot even get into competition for faculty jobs (in the end we are long-term social creatures). I have moved among several universities in Europe and learned that. Got a broad view appreciating postdoc in US and moved here without looking back. Last time I was in W Spain and I will return only for tourism.
In the place-based field sciences it is vital that trainees spread their wings and spend time in different locations. I find it difficult to believe that someone in ecology or earth sciences who has not moved beyond their home institution can really appreciate and understand the variety of ecosystems that exist.
As a hiring manager, I won't hire a scientist that has done a postdoc at the same location as their graduate work. Nor will I hire a scientist that does more than one postdoc at the same location. Our entire hiring team works by those policies, and I think it's pretty common in government and industry. Diversification is one of the most important qualities of a young scientist. To show that you can manage change well by moving and taking up new tasks in a new lab and succeeding in them is something very valuable. And for yourself, you bring skills and knowledge to share with the new lab, which is an equally valuable experience. I have to know that you can fold quickly into the team, that you bring fresh ideas to the table, and that you have a lot of experiences to share with the team. If you have only worked in one lab or institute for multiple positions, well, the term used by hiring managers is "inbred."
I do agree that the graduate students should broad their experience through applying postdoc or faculty position outside of home institution. If they always stay in same place, they never can have more real experience with other scientists. They might not discover new things. And the home institution will never get new fresh faces. In summary, this is not good for institution, neither for students themselves.
@ Gerald, you probably don't have kids at school or a partner who has a fulfilling job outside of this scientific circus...? Of course going abroad etc. widen ones perspective and experiences but to get a job in science it shouldn't be an obligatory point in your cv and the most important. You should be evaluated by your scientific expertise and not your willingness to change your home! You can work today at one place with very international collaboratos without moving to them but with the chance to learn form them, work with them and hence also widen your perspective on life and increase your scientific and personal experiences.
The whole system of moving, short term jobs etc. is something which can (but of course does not has to) negative impacts on private relationships and family life. And moreover it increases the so called "brain drain" for certain scientific level.
I see and know all the advantages of staying abroad but I see also many disadvantages.
While I generally agree that the "need to move" at each stage of career transition is antiquated and not always real - there are also alterior motives for this kind of advice on both sides. For those who say "move on, get out of here!" - often they realize that these "trainees" (term used very loosely for the sake of discussion) are now skilled in the same field as the bosses in the labs from whence they came and represent possible competition. Thus, they don't want them around. Also, the longer one is at an institution, especially at various levels on the totem pole, they gain a deep perspective on the flaws of that institution along with sympathies at each of the levels they've experienced. So, one who was a student and/or a postdoc at an institution may question policies and behaviors of the faculty harmful to the careers of those "trainees" - which is taboo!
Now, for those who say "stay put!" - I hear this advice most often from faculty who "trained" (or not) undergraduates and/or graduate students.... or those "trainees" otherwise have somehow become very skilled, talented and productive in that faculty bosses lab and they simply do not want to lose them. This person often now represents a high level of skill and productivity, equal or beyond even that of many at the faculty career stage. Also, once they are already skilled, this represents a person who can be productive with NO time/effort investment for training/mentorship for the faculty member - the holy grail that they all seek for cheap labor. However, this is the opposite of training - for a trainee to become a higher level trainee in the same or a similar (collaborating?) laboratory. Even if there is not an intentional alterior motive, it is still inappropriate since it is unlikely that there is anything in the old lab for the person to gain as far as new training - which is the point of a new training position. Of course there is a small, albeit short-sighted, benefit to the trainees in this situation, especially those going from undergrad to grad school in the same lab: they have the opportunity for their Ph.D. to be completed in a much shorter time than their colleagues, since they already know all of the skillsets they need, may have already made progress on a project (and may even have publications on it already), and already have a connection with the boss so they have some emotional cards to play for getting out faster - though the competing interest of "this person is WAY productive for me" still exists.
NOW - for postdocs/postechs/postemps seeking faculty positions in their home institution - there really isn't a conflict of interest (well, setting the potential for nepotism aside, especially if they are married to a faculty member). Since a faculty position is independent and free from the requirement that most of your efforts go to benefit the boss, and is not a training position (though I know a lot of faculty who need some additional training) there really isn't the concern that you will be misused as an employee. In fact, a postdoc and/or student at an institution probably has roots in the community, a good network of collaborators and facility access and a lot of other things they have built up over the years - so at that point the argument that allowing them to stay but as faculty so that they can maximize productivity . So THAT and only THAT is the time when staying at a home institution is really the best option for everyone.
Staying at the same institution is similar to inbreeding and creates a very narrow sense of appreciation. It stifles individual growth. While it may be to the benefit of the postdoc advisor who has a 'colleague' that can be considered as bonded labor, for the postdoc moving into a faculty position in the same department - it rarely allows him/her to be truly independent. it does not encourage individual recogniton or even room for his/her individual achievements if there is any.
While some young scientists will certainly benefit from "hitting the road", others may suffer due to many reasons. The same applies to those who stay where they are.
Thus I support the idea of changing the attitude to advise young scientists to move on, however the following issues should be considered:
1)it should not become a habit to keep everybody.
2) Universities and institutes should give positions (limited number) to the mentors so they can keep those young scientists who would like to stay, if the mentor and other faculties within the institute believe that he/she can deliver. But it should be a real job kind of position.
Positions for young scientists such as Junior group leader, Junior professor and assistant/associated research professor are already available in German and Chinese top universities/institutes for those who prove themselves during their postdoc. I think this is a good idea.
For PhD students, I would say they must move on for at least one postdoc. Then it would be possible to recruit them later on if they want to and/or they are good.
Retaining post-docs as faculty members at the same institute creates the problem of favouritism. This can already be seen in many UK universities, particularly MRC Institutes that post-docs from big name PIs, mostly the directors, are retained as PIs. However, leaving countries is not easy for all nationals as well. For instance, for a non-EU national leaving the country of PhD is difficult as the rights to settlement are lost. Yet, many fellowships request changing countries putting the non-EU nationals at a disadvantage.
In several countries, probably most, the tradition is for the recruitment to done among the students of the host institution. The result is there to be seen: endogamy. Endogamy ends up jeopardizing the quality of the training, because lecturers are all from the same school and learned all from the same masters. It is a horrible system. It has proved to be a failure where it exists.
Dear Colleague, you are damn wrong, sorry.
There is nothing worse in academia than scientific inbreed!
I sit in a place where half of the lecturers, but actually 60% of the University academic staff, know only their own surroundings, an old Afrikaander community. If they have ever been longer in another place, it is one of the 3-4 other SA real universities (the others are rather colleges), 2 of them just 50 km away. Is that the example for the students?
In my career, I studied in Berlin until my doctorate, went than to Stellenbosch (South Africa) as a post doc, from there back to Germany, Munich and did my habilitation (2nd doctorate). During that time I spent several months at UCLA. From Munich, I went to for 2 years to France and returned to Munich. I was 3 years Hon. Prof in China and worked all over the wordl, between South America, India, and Australia. Now I am back in South Africa. Probably my last place before retirement. It is true: it was not easy and might have contributed to the falling apart of my family. But scientifically, it was the best way to do it. Comparing my experience with that of my colleagues, just when sitting at a table and discussing things or talking to 40 years younger students, makes the difference clear.
Regards
Wlady Altermann
Prof. Dr. Dr. W. Altermann
Kumba-Exxaro Chair in Geodynamics
Department of Geology
Mineral Sciences Building, 3-50
University of Pretoria
0002 Pretoria, RSA
Tel.: +27 12 4204137
Fax: +27 12 3625219
@mail: Wlady.altermann@up.ac.za
First, I wonder how many voters answered this question,
Do you agree with Cohen that this tradition is "as costly as it is arbitrary"?
rather than the poll question right next to it, which would reverse the response. I agree with Cohen, and said No in the poll. In any case, I doubt that the current 55% Yes to 45% No is a significant difference, so let's call it 50/50, meaning that the tradition is being seriously questioned and, by definition, is probably on it's way out. Tradition's nemesis, flexibility, is what Cohen argues for, and I think he is right.
Taking a post-doc at Cambridge University after completing a PhD in Australia is certainly the best thing I've done for my career. Not that my Australian education was bad, it was very good, but there is no substitute to broadening one's horizons by being immersed in a completely different academic environment. I have since returned to a faculty position at a different university in Australia.
While a range of experience is desirable for new post-docs/junior faculty, this need not be found by changing institutions. Doing the same work in the same field at a new institution might not give much novel experience. Why not evaluate the candidate based on the range of experience regardless of geographic location?
Long gone are the days where post-docs or junior faculty were well-paid and spouses and children could tag along to work abroad. Dual incomes for faculty with spouses and child-raising commitments are the norm. Expecting faculty to put career above fulfilling personal life is unrealistic.
A broad range of experience is desired for new post- docs. This experience can only be obtained through a new perspective. One needs to move away to obtain that new perspective. Same with new faculty. A new faculty member should be from another institution, unless that new faculty member has been teaching elsewhere for a long period of time (i.e. 10 yrs) before returning to his/her alma mater.