Gas Stations in Texas This is a photo that I recently took outside of a gas station between Houston and Austin: Now, if you haven’t been to a Buc-ee’s (pronounced “Bucky’s”), it is more like the size of a small grocery store than a regular gas station. There are dozens if not a hundred gas pumps, fresh barbequed brisket, a clothing section, a drink station with 30-40 kinds of soft drinks (many of them obscure), and more. It’s huge, and it’s a very popular Texas road stop for the quality of the food and snacks, the amenities, etc.
The proposed salary formula, designed to fairly compensate post-docs, actually ends up delivering a one-two punch to those in lower-cost areas like Cleveland. While it's perfectly rational to think people in high-cost areas like California should get paid more to cover their living expenses, the formula overcorrects, effectively turning high housing costs into a bizarre sort of perk.
Post-docs in California, under this scheme, aren't just compensated for their eye-watering rent; they're also pocketing significantly more non-housing income, boosting their consumption on everything else. Meanwhile, their Cleveland counterparts are left in the cold (quite literally). They're not just enduring harsh winters; they're also left with less for basic non-housing needs compared to their Californian counterparts.
In trying to address the very real issue of housing affordability, the formula inadvertently creates a new inequality, favoring those in already desirable, albeit expensive, locations. It's a policy that, while aimed at fairness, ends up rewarding high living costs and penalizing those in more modest markets. The result? A well-meaning but flawed approach that needs a rethink to truly align with the principles of equity and fairness.
This is interesting. It would be interesting to include non-biomedical life scientists (plant biologists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists) who are on a lower funding rung than anyone NIH funded.
While I agree in general with what's written here, one part seems not to be fleshed out:
> Mandate that NIH transition to a system in which NIH dollars pay for post-docs only through direct grants (such as F32 or K99), rather than as personnel on another principal investigator’s grant (R01 or otherwise).
This would significantly change the nature of grant proposals and how research is conducted. Usually, PIs are too busy with teaching and administrative duties to perform much hands-on research themselves. Hiring a postdoc is a key component of many grants, because it provides an experienced researcher who can carry out the proposed program with guidance from the even more experienced PI.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of this system, but there would have to be a lot more changes than just postdoc pay/etc. policies to make a new system work. It would be interesting to explore exactly what that would entail in a followup post.
Nice article. While I agree a lot of academic jobs are hard to come by, the entire research industry more or less funds IP and private patents. The focus on biomedical research too, is somewhat tilted towards an expensive healthcare system that has no affordable solutions for the uninsured. Preventative healthcare, while not a complete solution, does more to prevent certain diseases. Then there is the publish or perish, and the one strike and you're out from academia. My grades were bad in a PhD program in 2006, thus I failed, but I never imagined it would be an eternal damnation to hell. Our entire society would be better off if it were one big campus with free housing. Like that Rodney Dangerfield movie, back to school -he says school is way better. (Edit: I did have additional opportunities and was being hyberbolic)
Hard agree, also in Europe - I think that reinvigorating the 'staff scientist' role would go a long way
The proposed salary formula, designed to fairly compensate post-docs, actually ends up delivering a one-two punch to those in lower-cost areas like Cleveland. While it's perfectly rational to think people in high-cost areas like California should get paid more to cover their living expenses, the formula overcorrects, effectively turning high housing costs into a bizarre sort of perk.
Post-docs in California, under this scheme, aren't just compensated for their eye-watering rent; they're also pocketing significantly more non-housing income, boosting their consumption on everything else. Meanwhile, their Cleveland counterparts are left in the cold (quite literally). They're not just enduring harsh winters; they're also left with less for basic non-housing needs compared to their Californian counterparts.
In trying to address the very real issue of housing affordability, the formula inadvertently creates a new inequality, favoring those in already desirable, albeit expensive, locations. It's a policy that, while aimed at fairness, ends up rewarding high living costs and penalizing those in more modest markets. The result? A well-meaning but flawed approach that needs a rethink to truly align with the principles of equity and fairness.
This is interesting. It would be interesting to include non-biomedical life scientists (plant biologists, ecologists, evolutionary biologists) who are on a lower funding rung than anyone NIH funded.
While I agree in general with what's written here, one part seems not to be fleshed out:
> Mandate that NIH transition to a system in which NIH dollars pay for post-docs only through direct grants (such as F32 or K99), rather than as personnel on another principal investigator’s grant (R01 or otherwise).
This would significantly change the nature of grant proposals and how research is conducted. Usually, PIs are too busy with teaching and administrative duties to perform much hands-on research themselves. Hiring a postdoc is a key component of many grants, because it provides an experienced researcher who can carry out the proposed program with guidance from the even more experienced PI.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of this system, but there would have to be a lot more changes than just postdoc pay/etc. policies to make a new system work. It would be interesting to explore exactly what that would entail in a followup post.
I don't think you can mess with the mess that is Texas. Or 'Merka. What a portrait! Inmates rearranging the chairs in their collapsing asylum.
Nice article. While I agree a lot of academic jobs are hard to come by, the entire research industry more or less funds IP and private patents. The focus on biomedical research too, is somewhat tilted towards an expensive healthcare system that has no affordable solutions for the uninsured. Preventative healthcare, while not a complete solution, does more to prevent certain diseases. Then there is the publish or perish, and the one strike and you're out from academia. My grades were bad in a PhD program in 2006, thus I failed, but I never imagined it would be an eternal damnation to hell. Our entire society would be better off if it were one big campus with free housing. Like that Rodney Dangerfield movie, back to school -he says school is way better. (Edit: I did have additional opportunities and was being hyberbolic)