Alternative Academic Careers: The Disadvantages

Now that I've discussed some of the advantages of pursuing alternative career paths in academia, it's time to confront the disadvantages.

The most common reaction from tenure-track faculty to my decision not to apply for tenure-track positions was, "But you won't get tenure!" Tenure is coveted in academic research, and for good reason--with tenure comes job security, prestige, and protection of one's academic freedom. For me, academic freedom and job security haven't been particularly compelling reasons to choose the tenure track. I have never found my academic freedom to be curtailed by my place in the food chain, and all faculty at my institution are protected under academic freedom rules regardless of tenure status. And although job security is appealing, keeping a job is not the same as being successful at it, as evidenced by the tenured faculty who retain their jobs but have no funding or lab space, and can do no research. Moreover, some alternative academic positions might arguably provide more job security than a tenure-track Assistant Professorship.

This leaves the prestige issue, which is, in my opinion, the greatest drawback to alternative academic career tracks. The tenure track is the academic gold standard, and people on alternative career tracks are often viewed as second-class citizens. Undoubtably, there are those who are on alternative career tracks because they could not get tenure-track positions or because they failed on the tenure track. The result is that alternative career tracks are perceived as a refuge for those who couldn't hack it on the tenure track, and everyone on these tracks is broadly painted with the same brush regardless of how, or why, one came to be on these tracks.

I struggled with this issue for a long time. I wanted respect, and it galled me to think that people would automatically assume I was a lousy scientist because I wasn't on the tenure track. But my labmate, D, pointed out that everyone he knew who knows me respects me, so what difference did it make what other random people thought of me? I think D had a good point, and I also believe that respect in academic research can be earned via the quality of one's research and not just through one's rank. Indeed, many of my concerns have been assuaged by positive interactions with the tenured faculty here. It is worth noting that a hierarchy exists even among the alternative academic tracks, with faculty positions generally regarded more favorably than either staff or perpetual postdoc positions. This is one issue to seriously consider before taking an alternative academic position because, in contrast to taking non-academic positions, those who stay in academia will always find themselves compared to, and falling short of, the tenure-track gold standard.

The other major disadvantage of alternative academic career tracks is that they are dependent positions. People in alternative academic positions are employed directly by their PIs and do not have independent appointments with the university. They also cannot run labs of their own and will always be working in another PI's lab, making them highly dependent on the goodwill of their host PIs. The dependence is compounded by the fact that job descriptions and criteria for promotion for these positions are only vaguely defined by the university, leaving much to the discretion of department chairs and individual PIs. The obvious implication is that those in alternative academic positions are vulnerable to being treated unfairly or taken advantage of by their PIs. While many of the advantages of these positions would still apply, it would be easy for non-tenure track faculty positions to devolve into "do all the crap the PI doesn't want to do" positions, and for staff researchers to become glorified technicians. In other words, one may not have to worry about tenure clocks, up-or-out policies, and writing grants, but one may also not be allowed to do interesting, independent research.

These problems appear to be least common with faculty positions and most common with perpetual postdoc positions, with staff positions falling somewhere in-between. For non-tenure track faculty, who are promoted based on research productivity and publication record, the most common issues are (1) being swamped with administrative and lab management tasks, (2) being asked to provide technical assistance on projects rather than doing real research, (3) not being allowed to develop an independent research project, and (4) not being actively supported for promotion by their PIs. Non-tenure track faculty whose PIs are not committed to helping them advance their careers may find themselves stuck doing work which benefits the lab, but does not generate the first or last author publications necessary for them to be promoted or to find a better position.

Both non-tenure track faculty and staff researchers sometimes end up being the de facto PIs of labs without getting any of the PI's credit. Staff researchers also have an additional disadvantage of reaching their promotion and salary ceiling at a level which is approximately equivalent to a non-tenure track Assistant Professor position. And since PhDs with postdoctoral experience typically enter the staff track at the highest level, they have literally no room for further advancement. As for perpetual postdoc positions, I honestly feel that keeping PhDs as permanent postdocs rather than promoting them to staff or faculty positions is, in itself, an abuse.

It's difficult to say whether the disparity in frequency of abuse between the three types of positions is due to differences in the positions themselves, or to the fact that those who get faculty positions were in better negotiating positions from the start. But these "abuses" highlight the importance of choosing such alternative academic positions carefully. The people I know who are happiest in alternative academic positions are those who (1) enjoy academic research but don't want to be PIs, (2) actively chose to take alternative academic positions, (3) have the ability to get other positions, and (4) have good relationships with their host PIs. Needless to say, those who are most unhappy are the ones who had to settle for their current positions because they could not get the positions they really wanted.

Because alternative academic positions are vaguely defined by the university, and because of the potential for abuse by PIs, the key to success in these careers is to be able to negotiate for the things you want. This is hardly a revolutionary idea, but academic scientists are really never taught how to do this. In order to have leverage, you must have other job options and be able to provide something to the lab or PI beyond ability to do benchwork. Many non-tenure track faculty help write grants, mentor students, supervize technicians, and oversee day-to-day lab operations. If you are valuable to the lab, then you will be able to negotiate for more autonomy, a better choice of projects, a more flexible schedule, less administrative work, etc.

Obviously, a good relationship with your PI is critical to successful negotiations, but it can also mean that you won't have to go to battle for every little concession. Having a supportive PI maximizes your chances of being able to tailor your position to your interests, do independent research and get credit for it, and be promoted in a timely manner. Some of the most fun I've ever had in research have been impromptu brainstorming sessions with my PI on cool new ideas for projects in the lab. This kind of symbiosis, when it works correctly, can be a great experience.

But ultimately, one has to decide what one wants out of a career, and what one is willing to sacrifice in order to have those things. A little self-knowledge is, after all, the key to happiness in life, right?