[absolutelastone]

Training is how the low pay is justified. I certainly agree it's not a good deal, more of a supply and demand effect. Are you saying I'm wrong about the definition? It's pretty universal: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21327

I do agree it probably gets used more as an easy way to get experience, the usual thing organizations crave in their new hires. But it isn't the only way. Top graduates can get temporary research faculty positions or even go directly to tenure track. Or in STEM fields, a few years in industry is seen as positive. Industry and Government research labs also have their own "postdoc" positions which can be pretty much normal pay.

[j7ake]

It’s not universal. Nsf is a narrow view of academia. There are other countries that pay postdocs properly (ie comfortable own place with kids) with benefits and pension.

[godelski]

  > Are you saying I'm wrong about the definition? It's pretty universal: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21327

Yes, I would say it is inaccurate to say that a post doc position is about training. Unless you're referring to them training undergrads and grads.

I think there are 2 key things we need to note about your source

  >> Which items or job requirements are most commonly used by institutions to define postdocs?

This is in the context of __hiring__. So they are looking at listings. I don't think just because you are saying that this job will provide training means the job is a training position. Or what we'd commonly associate with a training program, a junior, or anything like that.

  >> Is intended to provide training in research? 

The wording here is important. Personally, if you asked if a postdoc was __intended__ for training, I would agree. But if you asked if I thought you should expect to be trained during a postdoc I'd be more hesitant. Certainly that depends. If I hired you as an L4 at Google, and said there would be training, what would that mean to you? Do you think it would be fair to say? What about at an L5 (senior)? L6? L7? L8? Certainly not at L9 or L10, right?

There's lots of things that have an __intended__ outcome but don't have the outcome. Momentum is a bitch and when we're talking about institutions, well momentum is a really powerful force. So I wouldn't take that source as a cout de eta for concluding that a post doc is about training the post doc. Honestly, I feel like a postdoc is closer to taking a L5 and saying we're training you to become an L6 or eventually L7. And certainly that's not a "training position" in the context of paying someone as if they are inexperienced. You can always gain more experience.

  > Government research labs also have their own "postdoc" positions which can be pretty much normal pay.

FWIW, if you work at a government lab like LBNL or LLNL and take a __staff__ position then your compensation is going to be much closer to the base pay of a big tech. It's quite common to see these people jump ship and triple their salaries (sometimes they return. Often because it is nice to work at labs). I've seen people do this fresh out of PhDs, no postdoc involved. The postdoc positions pay lower.

[absolutelastone]

It isn't just job ads. For half the schools there was a formal definition. Also it has this part: "In 2001, NSF and NIH established a formal postdoc definition as “an individual who has received a doctoral degree (or equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to enhance the professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career path.”

And yes you should expect to receive training. In the sense that you have a right to it and the supervisor has an obligation to provide it. You seem to be mistaking my criticisms of these jobs for defenses of them.

[godelski]

  > “an individual who has received a doctoral degree (or equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of performing independent research.”

Would be just as accurate.

Btw

  > “an individual who has received an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to enhance the professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career path.”

Would be an accurate description of a PhD student too.

The official definition could also be accurate if describing an Assistant Professor (professor before tenure is granted)

So this is why I'm pushing back on the definition. Calling it a "training position" is just an excuse to have cheap labor and be exploitative.

[musicale]

NSF and NIH want cheap labor as much as universities do. They realized that they could it past graduation.

[dekhn]

Let me give an anecdote: I was a PhD 1995-2001 at UCSF. I made $25K/year plus UC benefits.

Then I was a postdoc at Berkeley 2001-2004. I made $76K/year plus UC benefits plus the service clock for the pension started.

Then I was a staff scientist at LBL 2004-2007. I made $100K/year plus UC benefits and the service clock for the pension continued (I have enough service credit to get some thousands of dollars a month after I retire). It was an exhausting job and I did not enjoy having to simulateously publish, travel, and get grants to hire people to do research for me. I concluded this was not enough to buy a house and raise a family, so I left for industry.

I worked at Genentech 2007-2008 and made $120K ("Senior Architect") plus full benefits (which were pretty good).

I then moved to Google as an L5 (I had wanted to work there for ~10 years before I got hired) and started around $140K plus stock options, benefits, and retirement. Over the decade I worked there (2008-2019) my pay was increased signficantly every year, ending around $250K (including the year that Eric Schmidt gave everybody a 10% raise. thanks eric) along with ever-increasing options and then RSUs, worth millions (about $200K/year), excellent benefits, and saving a ton for retirement. There were a lot of side benefits- on the job training, free phones, etc. I really lucked out getting hired and promoted and being there during a growth period; I don't ever expect to have a role like that again. This was the first time I truly felt like I could have kids and a home in the Bay Area without going deeply in debt.

The first few years at Google were stressful, I worked about as hard as I did at LBL, but every bit of hard work was compensated in some way or another- additional pay, access to resources (I basically could use all of the idle cycles in prod at Google- 1-3M cores- to do protein design, and publish). Every bit of research work that led to publications had far more impact (mainly due to the employer's position in research) than before, and I felt supported by the infrastructure to do ambitious things.

I spent a year at a Startup, making $250K and similar benefits to Google. I was employee #11 and have (worthless) equity- if they IPO I might get somewhere around $1M depending on how diluted my shares are and how big the IPO is. I am not allowed to sell the shares on secondary market.

Now I am back at Genentech and make more than I ever have in terms of base pay, while the stock (Roche stock) isn't nearly as valuable as what I got from Google. Fortunately, all those previous years helped build up a big buffer that will help pay for my kids to go to college (hopefully, some of my payment will go to help somebody else's kid get financial aid).

I'd actually love to return to LBL because if I do, my career will actually form a correctly nested path: LBL -> Genentech -> Google -> Startup -> Google -> Genentech (I am here) -> LBL. I'm sure I could get rehired there but at this point, why would I want to work harder for less money and publication credibility?

Looking back at my postdocs, while I learned a lot, I did not like the power dynamic with my PI, and really only persisted for 3 years with the goal of getting a much higher paying job.

[musicale]

> Training is how the low pay is justified

And it is mostly nonsense. The true justification is saving money.

See also: adjunct faculty.