Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- The "Ninety Per Cent" factor: Part 1. Getting in the ten per cent
The "Ninety Per Cent" factor: Part 1. Getting in the ten per cent
17 May 2010
By Andy Humphrey
There’s a sort of tacit assumption in academia that most research staff are "academics in waiting". Apart from a few early career postdocs, who wanted to get a year or two of extra experience before finding a post in industry, most of the research staff I’ve met in the chemical and biological sciences would dearly love to find their way into a lectureship in the fullness of time.
I’m guessing that the words I recently heard from a Royal Society of Chemistry careers advisor will come as as much of a shock to them (and you) as they did to me. We were discussing my own career path, and the likelihood of making it into academia. What I was told was that 90% of researchers who want to get into academia will have to give up their attempt sooner or later.
I think we should take a moment to digest that statistic. That’s a staggering NINETY per cent. The advisor was telling me that nine out of ten of us will never find a way into an academic job, given the current economic climate in higher education.
Once the shock had worn off, I was left wondering how the successful 10% managed to make the most of their opportunities. OK, so many of them will have had things I don’t have: postdoctoral experience in the USA, Nature papers, and so on. But I know successful academics (including up-and-coming young academics) who’ve never been in Nature and never worked in the USA, but who are still making it in academia. So how did they get where they are today? What are the tricks of the trade that have given the 10% the break they need?
I’d love to hear others’ suggestions of what makes the breakthrough possible.
Simon Smith17 May 2010 at 04:48 PM
permalinkreport this comment
“The roles and numbers of contract researchers today no longer reflect their origins as a small elite group of post-doctoral Fellows.” That quotation is from the Roberts review nearly a decade ago, commenting on the same phenomenon (although the table on p.146 suggests 90% might be a bit exaggerated, unless things have worsened considerably since 2000). Roberts recommended much clearer career paths, which would offer researchers one of three ‘trajectories’ – industrial, academic or a ‘research associate’ model. (The latter is for “those who have developed specialist knowledge or specific research equipment or methodologies … and provide an ongoing support/enabling function within a research group or groups.”) In terms of how to select people for the 'academic' trajectory, it merely says: "Better appraisals and career advice early on in a researcher’s career should be aimed at identifying those with the potential for an academic career", which seems to imply that universities should be identifying their 'rising stars' before waiting for their Nature publications. Trouble is (or is it?) that in a profession like academia, it's difficult to separate mechanisms for 'identifying those with the potential' from old-fashioned connections and patronage. See http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/0/9/ACF616.pdf for the key chapter of the Roberts review.
Lucy Rackliff18 May 2010 at 01:26 PM
permalinkreport this comment
If you dissect the CROS results you'll find there's some disconnect between the aspirations of some researchers to get academic posts and the likelihood of them being cut out for it. I guess that sounds a bit patronising, but someone involved in the analysis was telling me that a lot of researchers who say they want academic careers also say they don't like students, don't want to teach & have never heard of HEFCE or the RAE. If you use a forum like this, attend Vitae conferences, engage with the broader research community and get involved as much as possible in university life (sitting on committees for example) you'll meet lots of motivated, well-connected, ambitious researchers. You may then wonder how the hell you can stand out & be in that 10% rather than the 90. On the other hand, there are probably a fair few in the 90% who haven't thought it through that well & may realise in time that it's not really for them. To answer your question; in my opinion making the breakthrough involves a huge slice of good luck, but also (given the previous comment about connections and patronage) dedicated boot-licking/networking that goes beyond just saying hi at a conference & means investing real effort in building relationships with the people who can help you. I don't think you could make it without hard work, but I think you could work very hard & not make it.
Matthew Salois24 May 2010 at 08:10 PM
permalinkreport this comment
My thought is only this: publications. The currency for "buying" your way to the top 10% is likely the same no matter your field. I recently completed an exhaustive job market process. Of all the failed interviews the feedback was the same: not enough publications. The primary problem with post-docs, and research fellowships in general, is the inability to work on additional research. Being fully engaged on one research project that may result in your name being on a few publications is not enough. To be in the top 10% you have to go above what the average researcher does. Being successful means balancing time for both project work and independent research. The ability to do personal research has much to do with your PI and the concern they have for your career development. I also agree with Lucy. You must be willing to teach and engage in some teaching as part of being a researcher. You may not like being in the classroom and abhor the thought of teaching, but there is no hope of transitioning into a lectureship unless you send the right signals.
Andy Humphrey25 May 2010 at 09:29 AM
permalinkreport this comment
I agree, sort of. Publications matter. Having said that, in the two lectureship applications from which I got feedback in the last 18 months (one where I was invited to interview, one where I narrowly missed the shortlist), in neither case was my publication record the reason for non-selection. It was my lack of teaching experience which let me down, in both cases. I'm not so sure about the statement that "You may not like being in the classroom and abhor the thought of teaching, but there is no hope of transitioning into a lectureship unless you send the right signals" though. Surely if you can't stand the thought of teaching, you have no business trying to get a lectureship in the first place?!?!
Hannah Dee25 May 2010 at 09:39 AM
permalinkreport this comment
I'm with Andy here - if you don't like teaching, then you shouldn't be trying to get a lectureship. But I think Matthew has it too - it's the papers that count. I don't think that's right, but it seems to be the way it is. I realise that if you're a keen researcher then the lack of serious career progression within the research stream is going to be a problem, but it's simply not fair on the students if we end up staffing our universities with people who can't stand teaching. I actually think this is a serious structural problem with the UK system; lectureships are often granted on the basis of research output (particularly in the top unis), and teaching is seen as some kind of necessary evil. There are three strands to a lectureship - Teaching, Admin and Research. I think that if you're not interested in doing at least two of the three, then you should probably be looking somewhere else. I love teaching. I taught before my PhD (as a teaching fellow), I taught throughout my PhD, and I taught during my first two post-docs. One of the problems I have with my current post is that they're not letting me loose on the students. This is somewhat understandable given the fact that my French is rubbish, but I really miss the buzz you get from explaining something hard and seeing that light go on, or guiding a project student from being a total novice in a field to someone who's showing me things I didn't know.
Andy Humphrey28 May 2010 at 12:12 PM
permalinkreport this comment
I had an interesting alternative perspective applied to this subject in a chat with a senior (male) academic recently. The upshot of the conversation appeared to be that if you wanted to make it into academia you have to have no other distractions in your life. The focus has to be on your academic work and ONLY your academic work - with an attendant willingness to work far beyond the strict requirements of your contract in order to succeed. To misquote the Pythons, the key requirement was an almost fanatical devotion to the research - anything less was a sign that you didn't really want the academic career path enough. I'm not sure I liked what he was saying. I don't think it quite squares with the RSC career's advisor's 90% figure of eventual drop-outs from academia, because I'm sure that among that number ARE many excellent researchers who have been passionately devoted to their research (I've known several such people who have since become part of the 90%). I also strongly suspect he wouldn't have said this to me if I was a woman with a young family, having to fit career aspirations around the demands of childcare. But I still can't help feeling that, in a way, he's right. Most of the career academics I know really do live and breathe their research, and I can think of very few who have any kind of outside interests, voluntary activities or even much of a social life beyond their work colleagues. So is this the price we have to pay for success? And does this perhaps explain the 90% - because sooner or later, 9 out of 10 of us will tire of living like this?
Matthew Salois28 May 2010 at 09:35 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Absolutely, I agree with you and Hannah both in that if you do not like teaching then you have no business seeking a lectureship. However, the sad reality is that I have often encountered lecturers, readers, professors, all who view teaching as a "necessary evil," as Hannah stated. In fact, on a recent interview one of the other candidates professed to me that she did not enjoy teaching (despite the fact that the post was to be taking the lead on developing a new MSc degree).