Okay, so I don't want to turn this into a we're-more-deserving-than-thou pissing match. Everyone in education needs more funding. I just saw this article in The Chronicle and it made my brain do silly things.
The headline reads, "Young Scientists, Starved for Federal Grants, Get Some Donated Help." The idea of the young, starving scientists--trapped in some sort of academic Dickensian dilemma--made me giggle. I'm sure that wasn't the headline editor's intention, but there it is. I can't help but imagine young scientists--looking very much like refugees--crowding a supply drop on the sunny quad at their research institutions. Frankly, are there ever enough beakers?
Then when I was reading, I thought of how interesting the article would be if the less-fortunate academics in question were doing something far less sexy than science. This is how my brain works:
The average age of philosophers when they receive their first major grant from the National Institutes of Critical Thinking is 42, Mr. Vitrant says. He's referring to the agency's R01 grants, which typically give several years of funding at the level of about $400,000 per year.
Philosophers earning their institutions giant grants. Hee hee. And:
In recent years, organizations such as the Howard Hughes Musical Institute have started programs to support young composers.
Because we live in a society where music is valued so very much. And:
Agencies like the NIH and the National Writing Foundation tend to award grants to more-established researchers, making it difficult for young journalists to land support to work on their own ideas.
As though young journalists are encouraged to work on their own ideas. I am giggling, again. And:
The group addresses the very issues that soured Mr. Vitrant on becoming an artist himself--the dearth of opportunities for young sculptors, and the gap between the artistic community and the rest of society.
Because, of course, the gap between the scientific community and the general public is so much wider than that of everything else in the academy and the general public.
Yes, I do understand the need for major funds for scientific research. I'm not mocking the plight of the young, underfunded scientists. I just wish that the plight of everyone else in the academy "starved" for funding could receive the same attention.
When I was doing my Master's -- and doing it VERY well (top of the department) -- my scholarships amounted to a little over a quarter of what a friend was getting as an absolutely mediocre long-term undergraduate agric. sci. student.
ReplyDeleteGreta, this is all true, but it reminds me of the old admin joke:
ReplyDelete*****
The president is having a budget discussion with the Dean of Sciences. She asks, where can we cut the budget in your college? Why is science so expensive? Why can't you be like the mathemeticians? All they need are pencils, paper and wastebaskets.
Or... is it too much to hope for that you could be like the philosophers? They don't even need wastebaskets!
*****
Science is a lot more expensive than any other discipline I can think of except engineering. I won't retail a list of what it costs to equip and run a low-end research lab -- that's common knowledge, I think -- but would appreciate any information from non-scientists about their expense lists.
Lucy, the reason it works that way is the Uni isn't paying for the TA-ships in that department. If the Libby was handing out grants that included assistantship support for students... or maybe they are. I'm just a chemist; what do I know?
Speaking as one of the the "starving" young scientists, let me say that I wholly support more funding for the arts and the humanities.
ReplyDeleteBut let me also say that in some ways you really don't want it. The money partly goes to pay for equipment, but a lot of it goes to people: grad students and postdocs. Would you really like to have spent an extra 2 years of grad school doing 'service work' for your advisor? Would you really prefer to have to spend between 3 and 9 years as a postdoc working on someone else's project before you get your independence. Would you really like to spend your time overseeing students and postdocs instead of doing the work yourself?
Science has put itself in a terrible rut this way. It's one of these 'be careful what you wish for' scenarios.
DrNat, don't postdocs make something resembling a livin wage and receive benefits with their contracts? That's been the impression I got, but I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhile I've always understood that a postdoc is arduous and often pays poorly, it still beats adjuncting for $2-3K a course, with a max of 2 courses per term at the school of enrollment, which is what necessitates a lot of freeway flying for those last 2-5 years to degree. People often don't seem to get that's a contributing factor as to why historians and lit profs (and others) take so long in grad school. "Service work" and postdocs still seem like a slightly better deal than adjunct hell.
Oh, I absolutely agree that a postdoc is far superior to adjuncting, both in pay and CV-building. It's true that 6.5 years grad school + 6 years postdoc may be better than 10 years of grad school.
ReplyDeleteBut you don't want to wind up doing 10 years of grad school and THEN doing 6 years of postdoc.
But you don't want to wind up doing 10 years of grad school and THEN doing 6 years of postdoc.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has been without health insurance for 6 years...
Damn better believe I (and I bet most other humanities/social sciences adjuncts) would dance the HappySnoopyDance for that kind of gig.
Grass is greener, dude. The scientists' side of the fence looks rather cushy by comparison. Both still suck compared to TT positions, but still.