Make Way
16/08/10 14:39 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Mon, 08/16/2010 - 14:39.
The tenure debate has been ranging long before mandatory retirement was abolished in many countries. The long term security that is afforded by tenure is rather akin to a very good union job that many other professions provide with relatively little training. However, the attainment of tenure comes with immense sacrifice in terms of 12 or more years of undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral training and a lengthy probation period of another 6 to 7 years as a principal investigator.
Most of the faculty members I have know work excessive hours despite the relatively low pay they receive in view of their training and job requirements. To be extremely good in their disciplines, successful academic researchers are committed to a pathway of lifelong learning. The best way to learn is in fact to teach.
The concept that "young PhDs challenge us with new knowledge" is a bit ridiculous as I can't fathom why they would have special access to 'new knowledge" that is not available to more experienced investigators. Where I have seen senior faculty slow down in their research programs is when they have difficulty securing grant funding, which is a problem for new investigators as well.
Tenure permits academic researchers to tackle more challenging and risky research programs, which leads to innovation and breakthrough science. Younger scholars are probably more inclined to pursue safer science that will not put their future careers on the line. The advancement of science might well slow down if all scientists are concerned that their jobs are in jeopardy if they go out on a limb. Moreover, many talented individuals might never even consider an academic research career in view of the average pay, long hours and poor prospects of job security.
If senior investigators are seen as impediments to opportunities for new investigators, then perhaps we are training too many for a limited number of jobs. We should be more supportive of our older scientists in whom we have already made substantial investments and have a proven track record.
Link to the original blog post.
The tenure debate has been ranging long before mandatory retirement was abolished in many countries. The long term security that is afforded by tenure is rather akin to a very good union job that many other professions provide with relatively little training. However, the attainment of tenure comes with immense sacrifice in terms of 12 or more years of undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral training and a lengthy probation period of another 6 to 7 years as a principal investigator.
Most of the faculty members I have know work excessive hours despite the relatively low pay they receive in view of their training and job requirements. To be extremely good in their disciplines, successful academic researchers are committed to a pathway of lifelong learning. The best way to learn is in fact to teach.
The concept that "young PhDs challenge us with new knowledge" is a bit ridiculous as I can't fathom why they would have special access to 'new knowledge" that is not available to more experienced investigators. Where I have seen senior faculty slow down in their research programs is when they have difficulty securing grant funding, which is a problem for new investigators as well.
Tenure permits academic researchers to tackle more challenging and risky research programs, which leads to innovation and breakthrough science. Younger scholars are probably more inclined to pursue safer science that will not put their future careers on the line. The advancement of science might well slow down if all scientists are concerned that their jobs are in jeopardy if they go out on a limb. Moreover, many talented individuals might never even consider an academic research career in view of the average pay, long hours and poor prospects of job security.
If senior investigators are seen as impediments to opportunities for new investigators, then perhaps we are training too many for a limited number of jobs. We should be more supportive of our older scientists in whom we have already made substantial investments and have a proven track record.
Link to the original blog post.