Yesterday, I mentioned that I was going to write about one of Young Female Scientist's posts. Here's what YFS had to say that got Dr. Isis thinking:
This is really weak. For the so-called National Postdoc Association, attendance at the Annual Meeting was really, really low. Last I heard, we have something like 90,000 postdocs in this country, and about half are women. So tell me WTF is up with this?The NPA's 8th Annual Meeting, held last week, was attended by a record crowd of more than 275 persons. Important discussions took place that will affect the work of the NPA and its members and friends for months to come. The first-ever National Summit on Gender and the Postdoctorate also took place and was attended by nearly 140 persons.Also, am I the only one who thinks there might be a grammatical error in using "persons" in a clunky passive voice instead of just saying "275 people attended"?I mean, seriously. That's like 0.3%, if we believe we know the total number of postdocs as the denominator. WEAK.
My reaction to this news may be the opposite of YFS's. YFS seems surprised that only 275 postdocs attended the meeting. I am more surprised that 275 actually went at all.
Now, before you think that everyone's favorite, and totally hot, domestic and laboratory goddess is unfairly sinking her teeth into the poor, defenseless National Postdoc Association, let me explain. I love the postdocs!!! They are helpless, and sweet, and kind, and good, and...Oh, fuck it. This is not my nature. Birds gotta fly. Fish gotta swim. I gotta sink my teeth in.....
Figure 1: What the fuck were you thinking, National Postdoc Association?
Why am I surprised that people went to the National Postdoc Association annual meeting? Let's begin with one well-understood fact - postdocs don't have any money. They are also very thirsty.
This year, the NPA's annual meeting was in Philadelphia. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are a postdoc interested in traveling to the meeting from a university in Texas. Registering for the meeting costs $225 upfront if you're a member, plus $35 paid at some point during the year to become a member. It's $300 if you're not a member. The NPA arranged a discount through Continental airlines for 2-10% (how generous) off of airfare for the meeting, but let's assume that airfare would cost $300. Add another $300 for lodging and another $100 for taxis, meals, and other incidentals, and we're now talking about $1000+ to attend this meeting.
The real kicker? According to the NPA website, "the NPA policy is not to pay for alcohol." A $225 registration fee AND no liquor at the reception? Asshats!
Now, imagine that you're a postdoc who needs to find $1000+ to attend a meeting about being a postdoc that has no liquor. You could go to your academic advisor for the money, but if you advisor is like anyone I ever worked for, she's going to say, "Which academic meeting [that has liquor] are you going to not go to in order to go to this one?" The answer? If you're me, "none." Presenting original research and drinking other people's free liquor are two of the very few responsibilities of a postdoc. That leaves you to either 1) Pay for the meeting and your liquor yourself, and then it had better be somewhere way sweeter than Philadelphia. Or 2) apply for external travel awards and still have to pay for your owned damned liquor. In that case, you'd better be really motivated to go to the meeting about postdocs.
Where the NPA is going wrong, is that they are thinking like an academic society that caters to faculty and their trainees. The problem is that the audience they are trying to reach does not have the resources to engage with them like an academic society.
If the NPA is going to continue to have an annual meeting, structured like any other academic meeting, then they are going to largely attract local participants whose need to travel is minimal. If they want to expand the scope of their meeting, then they need to stop thinking like old, grey-bearded faculty at some 35th Annual Meeting of Who Gives a Fuck and start thinking like the innovative young people they are. And, also reconsider the liquor.
The NPA can continue to hold an annual meeting, but they should also begin to explore alternate technologies that would allow them to share meeting content with people who can not afford to travel. Second Life, Google Wave, Twitter, and web-based conferencing systems are all tools that the NPA could use to interact with the postdocs who can't attend the meeting in person. Additionally, the NPA charges an affiliation fee for universities that belong to the NPA. Why not encourage universities to hold tandem conferences during the annual conference?
Now, don't get me wrong. It's important that trainees learn to play the game by attending academic, scientific conference. No one wants to look like a dumb ass by sitting down at a game of Monopoly and asking if anyone "has any 3s." But, postdocs have plenty of opportunities to learn to interact at conferences without needing the NPA to provide it.
If the NPA really wants to provide resources to postdocs, then they need to start thinking novel, not normal. After all, if the status quo was serving postdocs sufficiently, we'd have no need for an NPA. But, at least we'd have liquor at the rest of our meetings.
Education
Jobs
Comments
Postdocs will forever have too little money and too little time and too much pressure from their bosses never to leave their labs unless they get some collective bargaining action going. If the NPA isn't about to help postdocs organize, it's useless. If it is, it's too important NOT to go.
Posted by: anonnymous coward | March 24, 2010 1:47 AM
I haven't been a postDoc in a long long time and I still find myself subliminally, professionally, motivated by free food and drink. Old habits die hard, especially those habits that made the difference between stipend and starvation.
Dr. Isis, as usual, you are so right. With all the options open to organizers, it is easier than ever to design an event that fits the budgets AND needs of the potential audience. How can we create and sustain alliances without coming together?
Posted by: Post PostDoc | March 24, 2010 6:01 AM
Not only should post-docs only choose conferences that offer free liquor, I believe that someone needs to tell poor young undergrads applying to graduate programs to seriously evaluate the liquor policy of their institution before choosing one. Having done graduate work at two universities, one with constant budget problems and a restrictive alcohol policy and one historically religiously tied to a traditionally hard drinking culture of generous donors, the deep happiness of the graduate students at institution #2 (and happiness is not a characteristic of graduate students) and their engaged-ness and constant showing up for talks and events was entirely related to the liquor offered. Future doctoral students, remember, booze is virtually the only perk you will ever get ;-).
Sharon
Posted by: Sharon Astyk | March 24, 2010 8:20 AM
Just wanted to comment on one possibility why attendance was low at the NPA meeting (besides the very valid points already put forth by Dr. Isis). NIGMS held a meeting at NIH for postdocs ready to transition to independent positions virtually the same time as the NPA meeting (just one day following it). Poor timing maybe, but there were 150 postdocs at the NIGMS meeting and another 300 that applied for the meeting but didn't get accepted. Why the difference in the number of postdocs interested in the NIGMS meeting vs. the NPA meeting? Simple, the NIGMS paid for everything- lodging, travel,and even booze on one night! Further evidence to support the wise words of Dr. Isis.
Posted by: Erin | March 24, 2010 8:41 AM
ESA confrences cost a butload to attend.. and you don't get free liquor either! (They do have minibars to purchase some.. but still)...
Us poor undergrad folk have a tough time spending the $1000+ in terms of registration, travel, hotels for the week-long confrence...
Posted by: Eugenie | March 24, 2010 9:30 AM
I still remember a conference where the organizers had purchase kegs so that participants could have a free beer choice in the evenings. After a few sips of the free beer, the faculty level participants decided to pay for our drinks. Hey, we have income.
When the grad students and post-docs made the same decision, cause life is too short to drink bad (albeit free) beer, the organizers wisely changed brands for keg #2.
It is difficult to have a meeting devoted totally to post-docs because it should be a temporary position. How much should you invest in time and money when you hope to land a "real" job in a couple of years? I believe the appeal of the NIH-sponsored conference (@Erin #4) was its focus on moving beyond the post-doc rather than focusing on the actual post-doc stage of things.
And the best way to get out of your post-doc is to do hot research and attend scientific meetings where you can meet future employers - not a post-doc meeting where no one has a position to recruit!
Free liquor is always a good thing - unless it is really bad beer (imagine watery swill from parking lot puddles).
Posted by: Pascale | March 24, 2010 10:33 AM
One reason the NPA meeting is relatively small is that it is not necessarily a meeting that targets individual postdocs. Instead, the majority of the content and the majority of the attendees either run postdoc offices or postdoc associations. The meeting then gives them resources and information to bring back to their local institutions.
Posted by: btblue | March 24, 2010 10:46 AM
I actually attended the Summit on Gender and the Postdoctorate, but not the actual NPA meeting. I got a travel award to go to the Summit, which was low-impact to apply for. But I sure as hell a) could not afford an extra $300 to go to additional days of meeting that was not science oriented and b) was not inclined to spend more than two days in Philly being at a meeting of questionable utility to me when I could catch up with old colleagues (I used to live there) and actually talk science.
My impression on the Summit, and I told them as much in the post-survey that they mailed out last week, was that it was a squandered opportunity to talk about actual tools for actual success as an actual woman scientist. Instead, the meeting got to present us a lot of depressing statistics. I know now that women who have a baby when they are a postdoc are less likely to attain TT jobs...but why? I mean really why - is it lack of childcare harming productivity? Is it that a plausible exit strategy from dealing with bullshit from "academe" presents itself? Is it largely biological changes that occur in the maternal brain that almost no one is studying? If I know what the problem is, I can take specific measures to address it. But right now, the only tool I have is whether or not to have a baby, which is the wrong lesson to teach me, frankly.
Whew, tirade. I could go on about my second major complaint, which was the constant fudging about whether the meeting was about supporting/increasing #s of women in *Academia*, or in *Science in General*, which are two different things, but I'll stop. Anyway, presuming that the official NPA meeting was similarly statistics oriented, these meetings should either double down on being a professional skills meeting, or stop inviting postdocs to come to something meant for postdoc association admins and policymakers.
Posted by: p | March 24, 2010 11:05 AM
If, say, one was a postdoc in Texas, maybe one would leap at any opportunity (paid or not) to leave Texas for a meeting anywhere else. : )
On a more serious note: these (post + comments) are interesting thoughts on the topic, and I really like Dr. Isis' suggestion about novel ways to expand the conference virtually so that more potential "attendees" can participate. Actually, it's strange that this hasn't been done yet, considering how many scientists are eager to embrace new technologies.... Also, kudos need to be given to YFS for even starting the conversation on the NPA meeting.
You know, as someone with postdoc experience, I have also come to learn that some PIs don't really like to hear that their postdocs are part of postdoc associations. There really are scientists out there who don't like to hear about any sort of labor organizing/movement, especially within their own lab. This could also be a limiting factor regarding whether or not postdocs choose to attend the meeting or even attend any meetings held by local postdoc associations. It's sad, but it is a fact that there are PIs who do not care to pay their postdocs NIH-recommended stipends (especially those postdocs who are foreign and "tied" to a PI/at that PI's mercy) and who would act to stop any sort of movement to standardize the pay scale for postdocs, across the board (regardless of nationality).
Posted by: LadyDay | March 24, 2010 11:33 AM
Actually, to sort of extend the conversation, it's more than just academic scientists who are taking advantage of cheap labor. I used to work at a very highly regarded university, during grad school, and it was known that the staff at that university were not allowed to unionize so that they could bargain for better wages, benefits, etc. ALL of the staff were working more than one job to make ends meet, only one of which was their shift at that university. The cost of living in that area was not very high, so it makes me wonder exactly what kind of pittance these people were being paid by that institution. When I asked one of my former bosses about the anti-union stance of the school, he (being one of those few genuinely wonderful PI's who gave a damn about others) told me about an incident in the past where much of the staff went on strike, to try to force the school to negotiate unionization of the staff. What did the school do? It fired all striking workers and just hired more desperate souls to work in their place.
So, this abuse of labor occurs all over academia. Famously, Harvard students had to protest on behalf of the staff (the living wage campaign), many years back, just to help their staff obtain a living wage. I suppose what really made the point to that university officials at that time was the fact that paying customers (students) were protesting, not just the staff.
Posted by: LadyDay | March 24, 2010 11:43 AM
Postdocs should attend scientific conferences and interact with their communities as the researchers that they are (ideally, they would have been doing so since early in grad school).
It seems like energy and money spent on NPA-type activities could be put to better use.
Posted by: CM | March 24, 2010 1:46 PM
Y'all have missed the point of the conference. It isn't for postdocs to go round and celebrate how fucking awesome it is to be a postdoc and talk about fucking western blots and shit all day long. The conference is for the administrators and postdocs who run PDOs and PDAs to work on best practices and shit like that. As far as I can tell, the majority of attendees are sponsored by their institution/PDO because some places really do think they can make a difference for their postdocs and invest in them accordingly.
Is the NPA doing it all right? Probably not, but at least they're trying to do something positive. I like Isis suggestion of a 2L version as well for folks whose budgets won't stretch to a trip away form the lab...
Posted by: tideliar | March 24, 2010 3:19 PM
our still-informal postdoc association delegated 2 people to go to the conference. i do not know where their funding came from, but they received some kind of support. i have yet to hear their report from the meeting, but as far as i understand the focus is more toward actually heading up a postdoc association. i guess with my current knowledge i would gander that it is "upstream" of the usefulness to the general postdoc population. but i reserve the right to change my mind after hearing the report.
Posted by: leigh | March 24, 2010 7:04 PM
Here's my comment on why I personally didn't go to the meeting. And it wasn't for the lack of booze!
Posted by: Hannah | March 25, 2010 1:07 PM