Professor in Training recently initiated a discussion about the realities of the tenure track. One of the subplots of the discussion regarded paying postdocs "what they're worth". PhysioProf suggests that the NIH/NRSA payscale is a reasonable approximation of what a postdoc is worth. PiT asks, "What is a postdoc really 'worth'? Is $40K/yr sufficient renumeration for someone who has >10 years of college education behind them?"
As of 2009, the NIH set the pre-tax salary of a first year postdoc at $37,368. The pay level increases with each year of completed experience; the increase, which averages out to approximately $2,000 per year, ranges from about $1,600 to $2,800 (evidently the NIH feels that postdocs gain the most worth during their second year). The NIH periodically re-evaluate and increase paylines for "cost of living", usually on the order of $500/yr.
Many institutions use the NIH payscale to set their own postdoc salaries. (At some point, I was under the impression that any institute receiving NIH funds was more or less required to pay the NIH/NRSA salary as a minimum, but I may be wrong; feel free to enlighten me in the comments.) This provides some advantage to postdocs by setting a minimum expectation. Some institutes, however, take the NIH payline as absolute truth and do not consider for cost-of-living or taxation rates (my own institute falls into this category). Many of the prestigious universities and medical schools in the U.S. are located in cities with much higher than average cost-of-living. Cost-of-living in my current city is about 30% higher than the national average (and my previous city), and the state income tax rate jumped substantially upon my move to BRI. By the time I pay out taxes and benefits, my net income is only marginally higher than a grad student at PSU. Some postdocs end up having to take out loans or use credit cards to supplement their living expenses because of the mismatch between salary and cost-of-living. Of course, when a PI is applying for a grant, s/he can only request up to the NIH/NRSA payline to cover a postdoc's salary. Anything over that payline must come (I assume) from discretionary funds that then, of course, cannot be used for other costs like supplies or travel.
I really don't know what, if any, solution there is. But in wage debates, sometimes we neglect to mention or lose sight of the fact that $40k in one state is not the same in another. This was a consideration that influenced my choice of graduate schools. It is also going to play a big role in our next move. I can't help but wonder if some institutions are missing out on some talented postdocs and grad students for this reason.
As of 2009, the NIH set the pre-tax salary of a first year postdoc at $37,368. The pay level increases with each year of completed experience; the increase, which averages out to approximately $2,000 per year, ranges from about $1,600 to $2,800 (evidently the NIH feels that postdocs gain the most worth during their second year). The NIH periodically re-evaluate and increase paylines for "cost of living", usually on the order of $500/yr.
Many institutions use the NIH payscale to set their own postdoc salaries. (At some point, I was under the impression that any institute receiving NIH funds was more or less required to pay the NIH/NRSA salary as a minimum, but I may be wrong; feel free to enlighten me in the comments.) This provides some advantage to postdocs by setting a minimum expectation. Some institutes, however, take the NIH payline as absolute truth and do not consider for cost-of-living or taxation rates (my own institute falls into this category). Many of the prestigious universities and medical schools in the U.S. are located in cities with much higher than average cost-of-living. Cost-of-living in my current city is about 30% higher than the national average (and my previous city), and the state income tax rate jumped substantially upon my move to BRI. By the time I pay out taxes and benefits, my net income is only marginally higher than a grad student at PSU. Some postdocs end up having to take out loans or use credit cards to supplement their living expenses because of the mismatch between salary and cost-of-living. Of course, when a PI is applying for a grant, s/he can only request up to the NIH/NRSA payline to cover a postdoc's salary. Anything over that payline must come (I assume) from discretionary funds that then, of course, cannot be used for other costs like supplies or travel.
I really don't know what, if any, solution there is. But in wage debates, sometimes we neglect to mention or lose sight of the fact that $40k in one state is not the same in another. This was a consideration that influenced my choice of graduate schools. It is also going to play a big role in our next move. I can't help but wonder if some institutions are missing out on some talented postdocs and grad students for this reason.
Logging you in...
Prof in Training · 795 weeks ago
I completely agree that $37-40K is woefully inadequate for a postdoc salary but as a financially-strapped PI I can't afford to pay my postdoc anymore than that - fortunately, my current city has a very low cost of living. One could also argue that junior faculty are also underpaid considering their workload and contributions to their department/school.
If I had enough money, I would pay my trainees more. But I don't. And in the current climate, it would be in my best interests to pay them the NRSA salary and be able to have more people in the lab. Unfortunate but true.
leigh · 795 weeks ago
unfortunately, with a limited NIH budget, increasing pay for postdocs would decrease funding somewhere else- supplies? fewer grants altogether? this is also not too beneficial.
now if the NIH LRP applied to more than a very few limited areas of research... it might be a little bit more bearable. i can say that i feel like a total horse's ass for having invested this much time and money on my education and still being unable to afford to pay for the medical care the fixer needs.
Candid Engineer · 795 weeks ago
I'm not sure what things are like in the basic sciences, but in my field of engineering, I could have started an industry job out of grad school with a starting salary of $90-100k. So I would say the $39k I make right now is pretty shitty no matter how you shake it, esp. when in an exorbitant cost-of-living area.
When you look at budgeting for a postdoc paid at NRSA rates, once you factor in the benefits and research supplies consumed annually, what do you have to set aside? $110k? (Assuming $40k salary, $30k benefits, and $40k in research supplies). So is it really going to break the fucking bank to throw the postdocs a goddamn bone and up their salary to $50k? That would be an overall postdoc budget increase of less than 10%.
I, for one, would be much happier with $50k because $40k only covers basic living expenses in my area; $50k would give me some play money and allow me the freedom to live like a human!!!
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
If you have any interest in a career in academia, you are more or less told that you have to do a postdoc in academia. In bio- and chem-related sciences, you can make great money (at least $80 to $90K) if you can get a job in biotech or pharma; they are (or at least were a few years ago) paying Bachelor's chemist $40K to work at the bench. For a newly minted PhD, it is framed as a choice between money and career path (there are a number of fallacies embodied in this mindset, but it seems to be a pretty strongly held belief).
On the other side, PIs cannot always/often/usually afford to pay their postdocs more because, the way the system is set up, they are paying to run the lab out of a limited budget. One thing I wonder is where are the departments and universities in all this?
I will acknowledge that the situation could be worse. I'm not $37K is a terrible salary, but it depends heavily on where you live and where you are coming from. As leigh points out, if you did your undergrad education in the US, there's a good chance you're still paying for it or just starting to pay for it when you graduate (I am, and we're adding more debt for Paramed's education now). As CE points out, it'd be nice to have a little more money to do something other than pay bills... like go out... or save money for future endeavors. As far as I know, CE and leigh are like me, married but childless for the moment. I cannot imagine what it must be like trying to care for a child on a pair of postdoc salaries (although I'm aware of people that do).
Here are a couple of excerpts from the NIH Statement in Response to Addressing the Nation’s Changing Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists
The NIH concurs with the committee’s observation that NRSA stipends are unduly low in view of the high level of education and professional skills involved in biomedical research. NRSA stipend targets have been identified for both predoctoral and postdoctoral recipients.
The NIH supports higher stipends for NRSA recipients and therefore announces tentative targets of $25,000 for graduate and $45,000 for entry-level postdoctoral stipends. Future budget requests will incorporate 10 to 12 percent stipend increases until these targets are reached. After attainment of these targets, the real value of stipends will be maintained with annual cost-of-living adjustments.
That statement was released in 2001, when stipends were just over $28K. The 10% increase was maintained over three-years then dropped off and stopped altogether in '07 and '08. I guess it's good to know that the NIH thought there was a problem and started to do something about it...
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
In the meantime, here's a bit of info from the National Postdoc Association on NRSA stipend levels, how they compare to other foundations/markets, and why they matter (namely that many institutes use them as a gauge for determining postdoc stipends). And it looks like another 1% increase on stipend levels this year.
Prof in Training · 795 weeks ago
In my case, this would mean only being able to pay my postdoc for 18 months instead of 2 years. If you have an R01 then it might not be as big of a hit but when you're operating off startup funds or small grants, an extra $10K per year in salary is a huge chunk of change.
For myself, if I don't get enough funding next year to cover salaries, I'll lose my postdoc and my research assistants. I'll also lose 25% of my own wage when my summer salary disappears and if I can only get a tiny bit of funding I'll have to forgo giving myself a summer salary in order to pay the lab peeps. As it is, my dept will only pay grad students 9 month stipends and I already have prospective students asking if I'll cover them over the summer. I'm expected to work for that entire time without pay, btw, and the starting salary for a 9 month appointment at the assistant professor level isn't that great either ...
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
To be totally honest, I'm confused. Are departments/universities really so hard up for money that they can't cover three more months salary for a grad student? Or make some contribution (even if it is a small one) to postdoc salaries or even assistant prof summer salaries? Do they pay any attention to grant paylines and award data? Like the one where the avg age of receiving your first R01 is 42? At times, it comes across as the university saying: "Here's a little space. Here's a little money. We have now fulfilled our obligation to you. Go pull in some big grants, so we can make money off of you... or we'll find someone who can." I get that this is the way it is and the way it has been for a while. I want to know why.
PiT, you make the point that an assistant prof's salary is not great, and that if you can't come up with your summer salary, then you're not getting paid for those three months. I'm sitting here thinking about the fact that most likely Paramed and I will be paying off undergrad and hopefully(? :) med school loans if/when I'm in my first prof position. And I'm wondering if we'll actually be able to afford it. It's just stupid to spend so much time on education and training... and still not getting paid well for it. Were previous generations of scientists independently wealthy so they didn't give a flying frig about their salary? I didn't get into this for the money, but geez, I'd like to make a decent living. And maybe, I don't know--buy a house? take a vacation? sometime in the next 20 years? Or maybe retire before the age of 90?
Sorry... going a wee bit over the top. But it's frustrating... and you know that better than I.
DoctorZen 4p · 795 weeks ago
Yes.
The undergrad enrollment in our department went up over 50% in the last decade, but our department got a 0% budget increase in that time. We have insane difficulties trying to support a small fraction of our master's students.
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
Candid Engineer · 795 weeks ago
2. Perhaps it is more interesting to note that in my lab, we have ass-tons of money. We are limited by space, not money, so a lot of our personnel grant money is not used because we just don't have the space to put people. What's interesting is that even though we have money to burn, the postdocs in my lab are all uniformly paid the crappy NIH standard. So I think it's great that PiT would love to pay the postdoc more if she could- but here we are- and they *won't* pay us more, even though a lot of this $$ is literally being sent back to the grant agencies because it hasn't been used!!! I'd frankly like to see down with your lab PI/administration and ask why this is.
3. Which leads me to another interesting point, which is that it is rather taboo for a postdoc to be asking for more money anyway. I'm *supposed* to be training in my lab for all of these "higher good" reasons (e.g. better myself, prepping for a faculty position, surrounding myself with the magnificence of my PI, doing awesome science, etc). And honestly, that is why I'm there. But complaining about my pay scale makes me sound like an ungrateful twit and makes me sound like I'm not in my lab for the right reasons.
4. PiT, it's nice that your department pays grad student salaries for 9 months. In my field, PIs are on their own paying for the grad students after the first quarter/semester of the student's first year. Typical start-up packages might include full student support for 2 students at 5 years each.
5. It's just stupid to spend so much time on education and training... and still not getting paid well for it. Were previous generations of scientists independently wealthy so they didn't give a flying frig about their salary? I didn't get into this for the money, but geez, I'd like to make a decent living.
We are choosing a lifestyle that we (hopefully) love. This is a *choice*. I, for one, would rather do what I do right now and make $40k a year for the rest of my life than make $100k while working for a money-grubbing bossy industrial company where I cannot pursue my own interests. I love the freedom that an academic career provides- and perhaps it seems that there is no perfect job. We must take the bad with the good.
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
Re: #4, I don't know about your or PiT's situation, but my graduate institute also paid for 9 months salary because grad students were TA'ing during that time. Paying for another three months of salary and benefits for a few graduate students should not be a substantial burden to the department, so why not have a mechanism in place to support summer research in labs before the PI has received his/her first major grant?
#5. We are choosing a lifestyle that we (hopefully) love. This is a *choice*.
I agree. It is a choice and one that I have made. That does not mean that I am not frustrated about the situation, and I would refer back to your third point here. It would be great if we could pursue our "noble cause" (whether science or something else) with no concern over the amount of money we make, but the realities of the world force us to make these considerations.
These considerations are particularly when there is a 'second body' in the picture. I have shifted into the role of being the primary income source in our two-body unit. Paramed is still contributing a significant amount to our income. That will most likely change during our next transition, and we may well be forced to strongly weight my salary as a primary factor in deciding where we go next. It may sound shallow or materialistic, at least in the absence of context, but it is an absolute necessity.
Connecting this back to point #1, crappy salaries might not keep good postdocs out of the game. But there are a number of good scientists leaving the game between grad school and TT. A report from the Heldrich Center at Rutgers suggests, as Science summarizes, "the United States risks losing its economic competitiveness not because of a work force inadequately trained in science, as conventional wisdom holds, but because of a lack of social and economic incentives to pursue careers in science and technology."
Another report from the Center for American Progress indicates that "career-life" issues--including "issues related to children"--rank among the top reasons doctoral and postdoctoral trainees shift their career goals, a trend that is much more pronounced among female scientists. This is issue is about more than salary; it's about the amount of time required for running a research lab and raising a family. However, anecdotally at least, money is a contributing factor. During a roundtable discussion with couples both having careers in science or medicine, one of them cited the fact that they could not support a family on two postdoc salaries. So one (the male scientist in this case) took a position that has shifted him into an administrative career.
It still ends up at making a choice. Everything does. I would love to be able to continue doing what I love without worrying about how much I make, but I might have to sacrifice that for practical reasons in the not so distant future.
Comrade PhysioProf · 795 weeks ago
CEiA, the situation you describe in your lab--space being rate-limiting and money being essentially infinite--is *way* the fuck out there on the long-tail of the distribution and bears no relationship to the situation of 99.99% of biomedical research labs.
Prof in Training · 795 weeks ago
I'm at a state university and we've just taken our second massive budget hit in addition to the millions of dollars that were taken back by the state after already being given to the school last year. Tuition has been increased, there is a hiring freeze in effect, departments are being closed and/or merged (mine did the latter), admin and support staff are being let go, etc. So no, there really isn't enough money in the university's coffers to pay students for an extra few months. Our grad students are supported by teaching assistantships which are 9 month appointments and they don't pay any of us over the summer if we're not teaching and certainly won't/can't cover research staff salaries - I'm paying mine off my startup funds which are limited and will run out in about 2 years. It's cheaper for the school to hire adjuncts to help with the classes so the fact that they're willing to cough up cash to support TAs right now is good.
Paying for another three months of salary and benefits for a few graduate students should not be a substantial burden to the department, so why not have a mechanism in place to support summer research in labs before the PI has received his/her first major grant?
That's what startup funds are for but they don't last forever and there's no guarantee that the junior PI will ever get a major grant.
At times, it comes across as the university saying: "Here's a little space. Here's a little money. We have now fulfilled our obligation to you. Go pull in some big grants, so we can make money off of you... or we'll find someone who can." I get that this is the way it is and the way it has been for a while. I want to know why.
This is exactly what it is. If one person can't succeed at this, there's a long line of other candidates who are willing to give it a go so the universities know that they can get away with it.
And CE is quite right in that we all made a choice to go into academia and we are all aware that we're never going to be millionaires. That being said though, it can be a fantastic career in which you have a fair amount of autonomy to pursue science you are really passionate about.
And you can afford the house, vacations, etc, if you're careful with your money. You just won't be able to buy that island you've always dreamed of owning.
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
Damn. Where am I supposed to put my cabana boy then?
Prof in Training · 795 weeks ago
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
chall · 795 weeks ago
I was quite ok with my 40k salary, living in a cheaper place, although I did find it annoying considering the vacation/sick time that was't on the table at first. I also agreed with the salary since the Institution I was at had a personal allowance for each post doc for conferences/book/something else you needed that was not at your PI's disgression. It did not come out of the PI budget but from the Institute. And of course, it did help that the grant I was operating under had a part of it for "travel and conferences" and my PI let me use that one for one conference a year. It made it easier to swallow the 40k salary, by of which a lot went to pay student loans... I wouldn't think of child care though, even if my city is "cheap" in living expenses and taxes, the child care options are still more than 40% of the post doc salary after tax.
somewhere I guess the harsh reality is that since not every post doc will end up in a successful project, some of us have to be in there for the sheer number and increasing possibility and therefore the lower salaries. I think it makes sense, somehow, but only in the shorter time and if you look at it from the point that post docs are in the middle of their career and therefore shan't have family obligations.
I think there are more good potential post docs leaving due to lack of sick leave/employee status/child care possibilities/vacation/"security" than actual "low salary" - but then again, that might be only my concerns?
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
By and large, I think these are part of the same problem.
I wouldn't think of child care though, even if my city is "cheap" in living expenses and taxes
This is why Paramed and I decided to wait until we were both done with education/postdocs/whatever else training before we will even consider having kids.
I think it makes sense, somehow, but only in the shorter time and if you look at it from the point that post docs are in the middle of their career and therefore shan't have family obligations.
I think it did make sense when one could do a single 2 to 3 yr postdoc and have a good shot a getting an assistant or assoc. prof position. Now that it's trending to 5+ years as a postdoc...
somewhere I guess the harsh reality is that since not every post doc will end up in a successful project, some of us have to be in there for the sheer number and increasing possibility
Hmm. This one could take up an entire blog post. And probably will in the near future.
In fact, this comment thread has triggered a number of post worthy questions/topics... as well as near post-length comments, which I think is pretty awesome. Keep 'em comin'!
Dr Becca · 795 weeks ago
Except that a large proportion of the country's leading research institutions are in high-cost living areas. Trying to live on a post-doc salary in NYC is damn near impossible. Some of the institutions here have subsidized housing, but those that do have long wait lists (plus, "subsidized" in some cases means $2K for a 1-BR), and if you work for an institution that doesn't (like me), you're out of luck and end up having to live far from lab. I have a 45-min commute, and still my rent is more than half my take-home pay (admittedly, I don't live in a total shithole).
it makes sense, somehow, but only in the shorter time and if you look at it from the point that post docs are in the middle of their career and therefore shan't have family obligations.
How old are the post-docs you know? I'd guess most are 27-35ish, which, at least biologically speaking, is pretty much prime time for family obligations.
Yes, I chose this and I love what I'm doing and I love New York and I wouldn't want to be doing anything else anywhere else. But it is kind of fucked up to be this far along (in both life and career) and have no savings to speak of or even hope for in the near future.
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
I suppose some would argue this is part of the trade off for working at prestigious institutions. I chose where to do a postdoc... but it still sucks that rent alone is ~60% of my monthly salary. I could probably pay less but Paramed and I placed a priority on (1) a safe neighborhood and (2) proximity/accessibility to my lab.
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
As Dr Becca pointed out, many postdocs are at the age where, if they want to have kids, it would/should happen in the relatively near future.
Although in blog discussions and reports we often focus on children, it's also important to recognize that children are the only or even primary family obligation. In my case, I do carry more responsibility at home now than I did in grad school because Paramed is a full-time student and working part-time. I think often other scientists assume that, if a postdoc is married, his/her spouse is also well-established in a given career, if not making more money than the postdoc (I distinctly recall having a related conversation with my graduate adviser). This is not always the case, and as I commented earlier, this "alternative" family obligation will strongly influence where my next postdoc will be.
Anonymous/poor · 795 weeks ago
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
Anonymous/poor · 795 weeks ago
Im not sure this all holds true, but it would be interesting to see a correlation between group size or total funding vs average salary paid.
biochem belle 43p · 795 weeks ago
I agree entirely with this. In a specific situation that I'm aware of, a PI with lots of money paid postdocs only marginally better than the institute standard... but postdocs also didn't have to worry about the PI not being able to pay them in a year or two.
limpingclammy 20p · 584 weeks ago
customized fat loss and all bonus programs
ginger brooks · 582 weeks ago
ed hardy love and luck
sameer5762 · 564 weeks ago
darwin · 524 weeks ago