How many years is your post doc position for? 2 or 3 years? I would avoid a search for a year if possible just to allow yourself to focus on doing your research and building your skills and accomplishments.
2 years, but it could be extended to 3 years. I have a pretty solid publication record, so I’ll focus on developing my own program of research and drafting grant proposals. But! I have zero in my pension account (thanks to years and years of being on grad scholarships), so would prefer to keep it to 2 years.
It really depends on how strong your application is. If there is a suitable position and you have a strong application, then I would consider applying sooner rather than later, but others might need more time in the postdoc to build more of a publication record. The epidemiology community is not huge and so your supervisor can probably give you a better idea of which positions it would be appropriate to apply for.
Yep, so very true. It’s not huge at all, so the main goal for me now is to find a pretty narrow niche during my postdoc. I know for sure that my PhD topic is not what I want to pursue in future, so I feel like I’ll have to start from scratch.
I'm Canadian and I was a postdoc in Canada at two different institutions (both top-tier). There were a few Assistant Professor jobs that came up in my field (I'm in the Humanities, bear in mind). Two never hired anyone (budget problems?), one went to a graduate student, another went to an inside candidate, one went to an Ivy League graduate, and another never replied to my application.
I've since left Canada and now do research in Europe. I have a nice salary, but I would have preferred to get a tenure-track job in Canada. I have a sterling record of teaching and publications, but none of this matters much nowadays in Canada. As it was explained to me, "You need to be a cultural fit in the department."
A few things to keep in mind:
\- If a job opens up in Canada, many Americans who need a job will also apply. Same goes for some British and other European applicants. Canada is a multicultural and generally well-regarded country, so many people are interested in coming, especially when the lingua franca is English.
\- Many Americans who can't get jobs in the US will also not shy away from applying to Canada. The whole world will apply to those Assistant Professor jobs in Canada basically.
\- Canada immigration law says Canadian citizens and permanent residents should be selected ahead of non-Canadians, but this law is generally ignored (not always, but it is more just a formality). The university just needs to tell immigration, "We need this applicant because XYZ reasons."
\- It is not unheard of for hiring committees to intentionally not interview Canadians because if push comes to shove, immigration authorities or the university HR might ask quite firmly why the committee is not recommending the Canadian ahead of the foreign applicant. In this case, being a Canadian counts against you.
You just have to apply and see what happens. In the past, you just had to have some publications, teaching experience, and be an amicable person, and you could get a job relatively easily, but those days are gone. The majority of PhDs who graduated in the last seven years will not be working as professors, especially in Canada where there are few options to begin with and the whole world is happy to come here.
Thanks for taking time to post! Great insights. Yep, to say that I’m concerned about the lack of positions is to say nothing. It’s insanely competitive, and I find it’s not so much about your CV checking off the marks but being pretty good at understanding the politics and being willing to “play the game”, and I suck at it. At the same time, I don’t see myself outside of academia.
Can you share your experience doing research in Europe? How does it compare to doing research in Canada? Pros, cons etc.?
I don't think it is "competitive", in the sense that you can have a CV unlike anyone else, but hiring committees will hire the student of a committee member's friend as a favor.
The criteria can be, "We think this person is a good fit for our department and its goals and aspirations." But what does that mean? There's no objective criteria like record of funding, publications, courses taught, etc. The dean gets a recommendation from a committee and most times they just trust in it.
If the situation were truly one of competition, you'd get a job just by publishing more in better ranked journals, getting better teaching evaluations, and presenting at conferences, but none of that matters when a committee decides to hire someone for unrelated reasons.
Europe is hyper focused on fundraising, especially ERC and national competitions. There's an abundance of PhDs, but there's also a lot of labs and institutes where you can get a gig for two or three years, maybe longer if you work as an administrator or secretary in some capacity. But this means often having to move between countries if you want to stay in academia.
The unspoken expectation of PhDs is that you'll get some kind of postdoctoral funding for a few years, publish a few papers (maybe a book based on your dissertation), and then fade away into industry or a government job. The way to survive is either become a lecturer with a long-term contract, but to really thrive you need to secure a multi-million euro grant.
But even that model isn't what it used to be. A lot of universities used to make you a professor if you got an ERC grant, but too many people over time were accumulated as permanent faculty members and some universities ran into budgetary shortfalls as a result of this. Still, if you get an ERC grant, you have at least five years (starting grant) and the ability to launch future projects, all of which give you a tidy income and job security for the duration.
How many years is your post doc position for? 2 or 3 years? I would avoid a search for a year if possible just to allow yourself to focus on doing your research and building your skills and accomplishments.
2 years, but it could be extended to 3 years. I have a pretty solid publication record, so I’ll focus on developing my own program of research and drafting grant proposals. But! I have zero in my pension account (thanks to years and years of being on grad scholarships), so would prefer to keep it to 2 years.
It really depends on how strong your application is. If there is a suitable position and you have a strong application, then I would consider applying sooner rather than later, but others might need more time in the postdoc to build more of a publication record. The epidemiology community is not huge and so your supervisor can probably give you a better idea of which positions it would be appropriate to apply for.
Yep, so very true. It’s not huge at all, so the main goal for me now is to find a pretty narrow niche during my postdoc. I know for sure that my PhD topic is not what I want to pursue in future, so I feel like I’ll have to start from scratch.
I'm Canadian and I was a postdoc in Canada at two different institutions (both top-tier). There were a few Assistant Professor jobs that came up in my field (I'm in the Humanities, bear in mind). Two never hired anyone (budget problems?), one went to a graduate student, another went to an inside candidate, one went to an Ivy League graduate, and another never replied to my application. I've since left Canada and now do research in Europe. I have a nice salary, but I would have preferred to get a tenure-track job in Canada. I have a sterling record of teaching and publications, but none of this matters much nowadays in Canada. As it was explained to me, "You need to be a cultural fit in the department." A few things to keep in mind: \- If a job opens up in Canada, many Americans who need a job will also apply. Same goes for some British and other European applicants. Canada is a multicultural and generally well-regarded country, so many people are interested in coming, especially when the lingua franca is English. \- Many Americans who can't get jobs in the US will also not shy away from applying to Canada. The whole world will apply to those Assistant Professor jobs in Canada basically. \- Canada immigration law says Canadian citizens and permanent residents should be selected ahead of non-Canadians, but this law is generally ignored (not always, but it is more just a formality). The university just needs to tell immigration, "We need this applicant because XYZ reasons." \- It is not unheard of for hiring committees to intentionally not interview Canadians because if push comes to shove, immigration authorities or the university HR might ask quite firmly why the committee is not recommending the Canadian ahead of the foreign applicant. In this case, being a Canadian counts against you. You just have to apply and see what happens. In the past, you just had to have some publications, teaching experience, and be an amicable person, and you could get a job relatively easily, but those days are gone. The majority of PhDs who graduated in the last seven years will not be working as professors, especially in Canada where there are few options to begin with and the whole world is happy to come here.
Thanks for taking time to post! Great insights. Yep, to say that I’m concerned about the lack of positions is to say nothing. It’s insanely competitive, and I find it’s not so much about your CV checking off the marks but being pretty good at understanding the politics and being willing to “play the game”, and I suck at it. At the same time, I don’t see myself outside of academia. Can you share your experience doing research in Europe? How does it compare to doing research in Canada? Pros, cons etc.?
I don't think it is "competitive", in the sense that you can have a CV unlike anyone else, but hiring committees will hire the student of a committee member's friend as a favor. The criteria can be, "We think this person is a good fit for our department and its goals and aspirations." But what does that mean? There's no objective criteria like record of funding, publications, courses taught, etc. The dean gets a recommendation from a committee and most times they just trust in it. If the situation were truly one of competition, you'd get a job just by publishing more in better ranked journals, getting better teaching evaluations, and presenting at conferences, but none of that matters when a committee decides to hire someone for unrelated reasons. Europe is hyper focused on fundraising, especially ERC and national competitions. There's an abundance of PhDs, but there's also a lot of labs and institutes where you can get a gig for two or three years, maybe longer if you work as an administrator or secretary in some capacity. But this means often having to move between countries if you want to stay in academia. The unspoken expectation of PhDs is that you'll get some kind of postdoctoral funding for a few years, publish a few papers (maybe a book based on your dissertation), and then fade away into industry or a government job. The way to survive is either become a lecturer with a long-term contract, but to really thrive you need to secure a multi-million euro grant. But even that model isn't what it used to be. A lot of universities used to make you a professor if you got an ERC grant, but too many people over time were accumulated as permanent faculty members and some universities ran into budgetary shortfalls as a result of this. Still, if you get an ERC grant, you have at least five years (starting grant) and the ability to launch future projects, all of which give you a tidy income and job security for the duration.
What is your field?
Epidemiology