You're all different: Creating your own career

Its 2013 and the economy is not that great. These were the familiar words from Eva Amsen of F1000 research at the recent NatureJobs Careers Expo as she showcased the successful career stories of fellow scientist. Her point being that you may have a plan in mind but the reality is not as straight forward. With her talk themed, 'You're all different: Creating your own career', Eva gave a gripping and engaging presentation on the diversity in science careers.

From academia to science writing to self-employment, Eva shared the journeys of selected scientist and the diverse routes their paths had taken as they embarked on their careers.  Speaking about herself, she told of how her specialty in science and culture looked dim after her PhD when cuts were being made and freelancing opportunities dried up. She had to readjust and ended up in publishing.   

However you interpret this, it summarises how bad things have gotten from as far back as 2006 and the challenges some graduates are still facing today. (Image by byJasonVarney for TheScientist, 2006)

A story that stands out is that of Douglas Prasher who seemed to be on a fairly stable academic path until he could no longer secure funding for his research. He left academia for industry and was doing quite well until he lost his job and ended up as a shuttle bus driver. He made a significant contribution to research during his time in academia but unfortunately missed out on receiving the noble prize in medicine for a discovery he pioneered. He has since been invited back to research. The full story may be accessed here. 

As extreme as Dr Prasher’s story may sound a lot of graduates can relate to this from their own experiences.    

On the flip side Ethan Perlstein of perlstein lab decided to take matters into his own hands when efforts to secure funds for his research after his time at Princeton and Harvard was becoming difficult. He took the bold initiative of crowd funding to run his own research project on 'the location of methamphetamine on the brain'. He now has an independent lab where he’s researching on various diseases.

For all the attentive attendees the message was clear. We are all different and your career path lies in your hands. People have secured jobs today that were non existent yesterday and some more will do tomorrow just from doing what they love. Eva did an excellent job of highlighting opportunities to create your own career from the success stories of ordinary people. Her talk set the atmosphere for the day as she ended by saying... 

“At a conference the most important things happen in the coffee break. (…) The most important things happen in interstitial spaces, they happen in between, and they happen when we least expect it.” -Hans Ulrich Obrist (art curator)

so off we went networking 

Full lecture slides below 

You're All Different - Creating your own career from Eva Amsen

Why the current science degree needs a revamp

A study by Vitae on the destination of doctoral students showed that about half of doctoral graduates are employed outside higher education (HE) ^{1, 2}.

The report stated that only 19% of doctoral graduates were employed as research staff in HE and that only 22% were teaching or lecturing in HE. On the other hand,13% were in research roles (not in HE), 6% were in wider teaching occupations outside HE, 27% were in other common non-teaching doctoral occupations outside HE, for example, working as health professionals, and 14% were categorised in other occupations e.g. sales roles ².

With less than 50% of doctoral graduates working in higher education, be it as research or teaching staff, it comes as no surprise that at almost every science careers focussed conference I attend, there are talks on the lack of professors and how many PhD graduates stray from the field of academia. The number of professors continues to diminish while the latter (PhD graduates) is growing exponentially.

Although the number of PhD places has increased worldwide over the years³, desire among undergraduates and professionals for doctoral qualifications has also increased substantially, making places in reality even more competitive. With such highly competitive PhD places and so many applicants, are schools offering the right career advice and are supervisors picking the right candidates?

The idea of the intense PhD process is to groom one into the world of research and academia. Over the three – five-year period, students find a niche area of interest whiles developing valuable skills necessary for a life of teaching and research. With the increasing number of doctoral graduates however, universities lack the capacity to employ them all. Where positions are available there is no job security due to precarious funding opportunities.

The industry and other sectors however, also value and appreciate the transferable skills possessed by PhD graduates. As such, a significant percentage of industrial job adverts now consider having a PhD as essential. With the job crisis lurking over employment these days, I believe PhD graduates have no choice but to be flexible and hence cast their nets wide and across board. The tedious process of grant applications, the lack of job security and funding play a key role in deterring the once enthusiastic PhD academics from pressing on in this field⁴. There are only a few handfuls who remain persistent in securing an academic position. 

But how does one identify our future professors? I believe the answer lies in the structure of the Science degree.  I have come across a few individuals who have shared their experience of starting a PhD and deciding it was not their cup of tea after all. Although there is no official published data on PhD drop outs, studies have suggested attrition rates of up to 50%^5,6.

Transiting from a degree to a PhD is almost like going from cycling to driving a truck. The change in experience is sharp and there is the danger that inadequate preparation can lead to a traumatic experience.

It is for this reason that I believe the science degree needs a revamp from three to four years to incorporate a research rotational year. This will ensure that the right candidates, who have the desire for hours of teaching, countless submissions of papers, presentations, proposals and grant applications, will be offered a chance to gain the appropriate experience. This way, students get to have a feel of independent research as opposed to the shadowed research experience generally gained at the undergraduate level now.

Although there are the four-year rotational studentships that serve this purpose, they are offered as post graduate options,  places remain highly competitive and are limited to a handful of institutions.   Some students go through the Masters / MPhil route and although these play a role in bridging the gap, positions are rarely funded and only accessible by the select few who can afford the cost.

What is therefore required is for the general undergraduate science program to be updated to four-years across board to include the rotational research year. This way, students are better placed to make informed choices with regards to pursuing an academic /industrial career.  Aspiring PhD students will subsequently have clearer intuition on their research area of interest, thereby reducing the dropout rate and the overflow of graduates seeking academic positions.

I hereby conclude that to tackle the problem of declining academics, it is imperative that experts look back at the root cause and consider a revamp of the current science degree system.