“Alternative” careers. When did that become a phrase indicating a lack of commitment to a research career? If you want to pursue a non-academic career, why is it an “alternative” career? It’s a phrase commonly used by graduate students, postdocs, and faculty at universities across the country. You don’t want to go into academia? You must want an “alternative” career. As soon as students enter graduate school, we’re groomed by academics for a career in academia. From the grant writing courses, the fellowship applications, and the emphasis on the Impact Factor, we’re quickly taught about the immense competitiveness required to succeed in academia. Given this emphasis on grooming the next generation of PIs, surely the concept of leaving academia for an “alternative” career is one espoused by a very limited number of graduate students… Right?
Not quite. Of all new students entering graduate school, only an estimated 15% will ultimately obtain a tenured position at a research university. According to recent NSF statistics, the number of graduate students in science and engineering has nearly doubled from 1975 to 2013, while the percentage of PhDs holding tenure-track positions decreased from 45% in 1981 to less than 25% in 2012. As we continue to graduate more biomedical PhDs than we have tenured positions open, our society has created a system to funnel graduate students into the pipeline for professorship. While previous generations could move from graduate school into professorship, today it’s almost unheard of for graduate students to move straight into a tenure-track position upon obtaining their PhD. Instead, newly minted PhDs will often complete one or multiple postdocs for several years, move into an instructor position, and finally, for the select few, obtain the coveted tenure-track position. This funnel system loses valuable assets at each step along the way, as a majority of students and postdocs will ultimately leave academia in pursuit of these “alternative careers.” The reasons behind leaving academia are vast, ranging from disheartening statistics regarding the funding situation (adjusted for inflation, NIH funding in 2014 was equivalent to mid-1990s levels), limited salaries for postdocs, the burden of training for over a decade, and the promise of a better lifestyle with an “alternative” career. Given the immense competition for a very limited number of tenure-track positions and the difficult funding situation, it’s no wonder that a majority of students are fleeing academia for an “alternative” career. Which, then, begs the question: Why does a clear plurality constitute an “alternative” career and what can we do to help this majority in our current and unsustainable funnel system?
In 2012, the NIH acknowledged this unsustainable funneling system and set out to change it. Rather than maintaining the status quo with a focus solely on academic research and training, the NIH created the Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) award program to expose graduate students to research-related “alternative” careers. Initially awarded to only 10 research universities, this award provides five years of funding to develop and maintain a program to expose trainees to careers in industry, government, science writing, and other research-related careers. Cornell University, one of the original BEST recipients, developed its program to prepare graduate students and postdocs for a wide variety of career options, both in and out of academia. Trainees have the option of training in one or multiple “pathways,” including science policy, industry, entrepreneurship and management, and science communication. Similarly, Emory University’s two-year program, in collaboration with nearby Georgia Tech, exposes trainees to one of six different tracks, including consulting, communications and policy, education and outreach, and non-academic lab science. After first participating in a series of workshops and completing self-evaluations, trainees spend the remainder of their first year participating in workshops designed to develop leadership skills while networking with local and national leaders in their chosen track. Trainees then spend their second year refining these skills while completing an internship in their chosen track. Currently BEST is funded at 17 universities, allowing these select trainees to explore the wide variety of career options available outside the realm of academia while completing their graduate degree or postdoc work.
Although the NIH recognizes the problem of the funnel system and has begun to make inroads in change through the BEST program, the fact that it is currently funded at only 17 universities across the country severely limits the breadth of career exploration to these select few trainees. To expand this knowledge, universities must make inroads into exposing more students to these career options independent of NIH funding. Ironically, a majority of the universities participating in the BEST program already had systems set up to highlight these options, and are simply expanding the breadth and availability of these programs through BEST funding. As an example, Emory has a Pathways Beyond the Professoriate (PBP) program and an Alumni Mentor program to connect graduate students with alumni and leading professionals across a wide variety of career options. One recent seminar featured a tenured professor at Emory and a professor at a small liberal arts college comparing the benefits and disadvantages of their careers, while other seminars have brought in leaders from fields including biotech and patent law. Having attended several of these seminars, I assumed all universities subscribe to this philosophy. However, after interacting with other students and postdocs at leading universities across the country, I’m constantly surprised to learn that these programs are indeed unique in both their frequency and scope. Programs such as these are vital for exposing the 85% of students who will ultimately end up leaving academia to non-academic careers. After all, how are we supposed to pick a different profession if we don’t know they exist or what they entail?
Ask graduate students and postdocs at most universities and you’ll hear very little about “alternative” careers. Indeed, on grant applications students are often advised to write that they desire to be a tenured professor at an academic research institution, regardless of their true desires. The fact that the fellowship review process consists, largely, of tenured professors reviewing our applications and career goals highlights the limited options in exploring career paths. Even though the NIH recently came out and said we must do something to counter this funnel system and embrace “alternative” careers, the scientific community struggles to overcome the mindset that academia is the only “true” career path. While programs such as BEST and PBP are slowly making inroads across the country, students outside the reach of these programs are frequently left to fend for themselves while exploring outside academia. Scientists must accept the fact that a very limited number of graduate students can become tenured professors at large research institutions. University leaders must work to embrace this fact. While there remains a long way to go, many academic leaders now eschew the term “alternative” career and have come to refer to these simply as “non-academic careers.” It’s quite simple: 85% of us will ultimately choose a career outside academia. Not desiring to become a professor speaks nothing of your abilities as a scientist or your work ethic. Rather, it speaks to the fact that our current system is set up for failure if every student is expected to become a professor. At some point, we must recognize that the true “alternative” career is in academia. For the other 85%… well, they have “careers.”
Career Options-CD, Mentoring and Advising-CD, nonacademic careers, nontraditional careers, phd careers, science careers
About the Author:
Scott Wilkinson is the current co-Chair of the ASCB Committee for Postdocs and Students (COMPASS). He is a postdoctoral fellow in the Sowalsky lab at the National Cancer Institute, studying the genetics underlying prostate cancer treatment response.
