What else except for research? - (Sep/11/2012 )

ascacioc on Thu Sep 27 13:01:25 2012 said:

I think that anywhere else in the world. a PhD degree is not awarded to a candidate by just one person....usually it's a committee with internal and external examiners...are you calling them all idiots then?

And I wonder who is more naive or shall we say- idealistic...someone who believes that by merit and hard work alone, one can succeed or or someone who wants to take down single-handedly one of the oldest mafia-like institutions in the universe....omg...ascacioc, how the heck are you going to start a movement and influence people if you start dropping the I-bombs everywhere?

I'd say prabhubct has an idealistic view on it and it's okay ...anyway I don't think all the quasi-Nobel laureates, high-achievers and similar dudes will recruit only losers and these losers will then have a successful career and become professors...usually they (or their staff) will look carefully which students get a chance for a PhD because they have high standards and want to keep them high (and they have a reputation that they don't want to lose, too).
And researchers in this level can select, because the supply of candidates is high enough. So I think mostly promising candidates will get a position there. Of course not all of them are good in the end and some are even "bad eggs" and manage it anyway. But IMO these are exceptions, because the competition is high in such institutes and the bosses usually not tender-hearted (I also know professors who kicked out PhD students that did not had the expected performance).
So I think in general the system works and also scientists with a degree from less known professors have a chance...

You can say idealist or whatever, but you have to believe in what you do and that is worthy, otherwise how you can live in world where everything sounds fishy. There is always ups-and lows, nepotism, different countries different policies, many times we have to leave our country for sake of job (poor country or rich but not rich enough to accept u) or some injustice happens and we do not get particular job. Everybody perceives things differently, based on what surrounding person is.
But isn't that you get job/post-doc at particular place because you know something? Till now whatever you are, you are result of your work. now you started perceiving things in different terms but that should not undermine what you are.

“how you can live in world where everything sounds fishy?” I like that. Personally, I would take being called idealistic as a kind of compliment and I agree that you have to believe in yourself and your worth, no matter how hard the other people will try to put you down or how many obstacles are placed on your path.

@ ascacioc: In regard to “making PhD students as the main life form in research labs”…it's a reality that we have to face...and I wonder who is to blame for this..definitely not the PIs bec like right here in Canada, the funding agencies would usually “favour” labs with grad students (in fact it is some sort of requirement) and with the progressive shrinking of research funds, grant awards have become less compared with previous years so obviously, money would only be enough to finance grad students and not fulltime staff. And the same is true if the new PI only gets startup funds from the university. I would think that if it is possible, a PI would rather hire experienced research staff or post-docs so the projects can move faster. ….and besides, whatever a PhD student is doing (hopefully not cheating, stealing or killing) is ultimately for themselves.

Curtis on Wed Sep 26 04:51:49 2012 said:

GOOD LUCK!!! And thank you for understanding

Thank you for the support. I am Bulgarian, by the way, so.......you have a really good idea how it is. I sincerely hope to find a position as an CRA without an experience (I already made some steps) or at least to win a position in the Medical Academy - the Klinical lab or Molecular genetics Departments. Bulgaria is a so small country.....

casandra on Thu Sep 27 15:42:34 2012 said:

hobglobin on Thu Sep 27 15:44:09 2012 said:

I have strong doubts about how the system works.

It seems that pretty much everyone that starts a PhD (and doesnt stop him/herself) makes it.

Professors are also checked on how many PhD's they "supply" or at least the ratio of starters/finishing PhD candidates is often checked. And this is thus influencing how strict they are.
I know labs where pretty much 99% of the starting PhD people make it, just because the professor doesnt want to look bad by saying he/she kicked someone out.

Its even so bad that grants are rewared on this: professors that "deliver" a lot of PhD's are given more grants or have more changes in getting grants then those professors that are more strict.

An example: I worked with 2 professors in 1 lab and 1 professor was strict and only hired the max of students he got to place in the lab (and that the could supervise) and he selected pretty hard (only the good ones, the ones he knew that would make it). He also invest time in teaching and his students. The other professor just hired pretty much any person that wanted to do a PhD and had a grant (of he paied for them if the professor had enough grants himself) , result: first professor has big problems now because he has only 3 PhD students left (2 will finish this year and leave) and 1 post doc now (will leave this year too) while the other has 15 PhD students and 5 post docs.. The second professor doesnt even have enough room to place all his students...(let alone, enough time to supervise them and check their research)
But in the end professor 2 is the one getting the grants because he has more "result" then professor 1 , while its the other way around really.
The level of students is also different: professor 1 works with good trained people that are willing to listen, professor 2 works with a lot of "idiots" that dont even listen to more experienced (but lower ranked) people and often they just do what they feel like and arent able to get any results at all. But in the end: they will all get their PhD because if they dont, it will look bad on the professor his CV.



It seems to come down to one thing now: amounts, amounts and amounts.. consumption society has reached sience...



Coming back to this:

yes, but do they really know everything? THey only read the output/the thesis in the end and ask some questions..
So you could ask questions about it.
Imagine the professor with 15 PhD students, how in the world can this professor judge the lab work? Or even the written work? THey have a lot of work and supervising 15 students ..... I am pretty sure thats not possible.

A big problem is how the grants are given etc.. there system is getting more and more an industrial system

pito on Sun Sep 30 11:21:05 2012 said:

Well, you make it sound as if it is very easy to be awarded a PhD degree. I am not very familiar with the system in Belgium but here and I’d say in the States as well, that getting first into a PhD program is not a walk in the park..you need to have all the requirements- usually a masters degree and then passing a PhD qualifying test, successfully passing all the course loads, slaving it off in the lab, getting a paper or 2 accepted, then finally writing and defending the thesis. It’s not a perfect system (but what is?) of course, but I’d like to think that with all the checks and balances in place, it shld work most of the time. Otherwise, you cast a huge cloud of doubt over everyone who has ever done a PhD or postdoc for that matter (and they’re the main users of this forum ) and the PIs as well.

Sure there are ‘bad eggs’ as dr H has already mentioned, those which have escaped quality assurance but they shld not be the standard by which we must judge all the others because if indeed idiots abound in Max Planck Institute or ULB or KUL and the PIs or other employers choose to believe this, then how much more in other places...then what chance would people coming from non-western countries or little-known labs have in finding jobs or postdoc positions? So we should have a little more faith in the system or try to work with it until we can find a better one.

pito on Sun Sep 30 11:21:05 2012 said:

A lab with15 students and 5 postdocs? Hmmm…this is more of an exception here and just based on economics alone (which part of living is not ruled by money anyhow?) It would cost a PI a minimum of half a million dollars a year just to pay all their salaries and what about the lab materials, equipment, training and travel expenses? These very large grants are a rarity now. As for supervision, it would depend on the size and the ‘age’ of the lab. The larger and more established ones would usually have more senior personnel doing the supervision, the smaller and starting labs otoh, have the newly-appointed professors usually fresh off from their postdoc stint, ‘hungry for funds’ and with a more hands-on approach in the lab plus a tendency for micromanaging. The older bosses may not be working the bench anymore nor would they know all the practical aspects of each expt but I think that they are still experts or shld know more than anybody else about the research topics that the lab has been working on for 10 or 20 years

pito on Sun Sep 30 11:21:05 2012 said:

But it’s not the function of the internal and external examiners to know everything. Besides, who can know everything (except the smart alecky know-it-alls) ? They are there to make sure that the student is making timely progress, that the objectives of the work are being reached, to resolve conflicts if needs be etc and in the end to give their recommendations.

pito on Sun Sep 30 11:21:05 2012 said:

Well, it’s not only in research but in the educational system as a whole..it’s now becoming a business not for teaching and learning but for profit…very depressing, I agree...

casandra on Mon Oct 1 03:43:47 2012 said:

I would say it is really like business or economy world. I don't have much data or statistics ( I don't keep track). But I remember a time when Molecular Biology jobs were very fascinating & lucrative. It was hard to be in this field because very few peoples used to know abt it, those who know it were regarded as quiet genius. B/c of its attracting nature this field has pulled more number of peoples. (As part of joke "This was not supposed to be learned by everybody"). So employment saturation like situation is arising. Again global recession and those struff causing cut down research grants. Of-course many peoples know many things but to recruit a person vacancy and grant is needed.