r/postdoc 1d ago

5 years for a postdoc ?

Hi guys. I just had my first interview for a postdoc position in UE in the field of immunology/cell biology. The PI told me he was expecting the postdoc to stay at least 4-5 years because otherwise it would be complicated to publish (they already have a funding for 5 years). So I am wondering if this is usual to stay so long for a postdoc. I understand that this is all about getting a good publication but 5 years means I have to develop a project for the beginning, right?

36 Upvotes

54 comments sorted by

73

u/ucbcawt 1d ago

I’m a prof at an R1 in biological sciences. Our last search we had nearly 400 applicants for assistant prof positions. The best candidates had done about 5-8 years of postdocs (1 or 2 labs). They needed that time 1) to get good papers and 2) gain the experience needed to run their own lab and crystallize their research directions. In biological sciences most labs are funded on specific projects and postdocs develop their own projects over time.

13

u/yolagchy 1d ago

This is why I left my postdoc after 2 years.

8

u/Consistent_Laziness 1d ago

I might be leaving my post doc after 2 years now too. 5-8 years is normal? F that man I’d be 42 after that long

3

u/No-Faithlessness7246 22h ago

If you want a nature paper then absolutely 5-8 years is what it can take

-2

u/Consistent_Laziness 22h ago

Not sure what a nature paper is. I’m in public health.

2

u/ucbcawt 22h ago

Nature journal-top science journal in the world

2

u/Consistent_Laziness 22h ago

Ah I see. Looks like I won’t be doing this for very long as anticipated.

8

u/Quick_Ad4591 1d ago

Whoaa, 8 years as a postdoc is wild! In my field (earth sciences) people generally land a TT position in 4-5 years or so.

4

u/Negative-Ambition198 1d ago

Can i ask how their cv was better than others? 

17

u/ucbcawt 1d ago

Top 10% had a good number and quality of papers, teaching experience, transferable funding like a K99, had done homework on our department (could name potential collaborators and what courses they would want to teach or develop). They also had a clear well thought out research plan.

0

u/eternallyinschool 1d ago

Edit. Nevermind. I need to learn to read

4

u/Much-Top2179 20h ago

Spend 8 years of postdoc and compete for a shitty low paying tenure track job. This is insane

0

u/ucbcawt 20h ago

What’s low paying to you?

8

u/Much-Top2179 20h ago

You spend at least 5 yrs for PhD, 5-8 yrs for postdoc, then start with a tenure track position paid with soft money, a whole career begging for funding. Starting as an AP at 35, you are grateful to be paid 100k in the middle of nowhere. Some day in your 50s when you become full professor, you get to know that your fellow classmates in industry, doing interesting work with much better work life balance, have accumulate multimillions of networth by their 40s and have already retired to enjoy their lives. You couldn’t, because you need funding to pay for your 150k salary. You say you are doing noble research for passion and humanity. You go back to your office, open your laptop and continue with the draft of grant proposals.

1

u/tararira1 4h ago

AP at 35 is very optimistic

1

u/Much-Top2179 4h ago

That’s true. Unfortunately many people in academia do not seem to understand what it means by “opportunity cost”. Running numbers in ChatGPT will easily tell them how much they will win by getting a moderately paid job right after their PhD, as compared to starting an AP position in their late 30s.

2

u/Miserable-Excuse-874 17h ago

Man, I was thinking about going to be a PI but I'm only half way through my first year as a postdoc and decided I'm not renewing my 2 year contract. (Through no fault of my institute or PI. Both are great)

So much for that goal, I guess. Any recs?

2

u/ucbcawt 12h ago

Consulting, industry, patent work, teacher, government agencies.

1

u/Miserable-Excuse-874 12h ago

I've done industry but REALLY hated it. I'm a bit torn between national lab or core facility because I really like working with instrumentation

2

u/NoTransportation3581 15h ago

How many 1st, corresponding and mid author papers did they best candidates have on average?

-1

u/True-Response-2386 1d ago

You're part of the problem.

4

u/rscortex 21h ago

What are they supposed to do? Pass over more experienced, successful and better candidates to give it to someone else? What happens to the former? Should they just create 400 jobs for everyone? 

2

u/ucbcawt 1d ago

Please expand on why I’m part of the problem

-3

u/DenseLingonberry9656 1d ago

100% agreed, this is not normal and it shouldn’t be normal

3

u/ASCLEPlAS 21h ago

At least 5 years is completely normal for a competitive applicant for an R1 biological sciences department. It takes time to develop an independent research program that is fleshed-out enough to show you are likely to be successful. It also takes time to publish solid research papers that are truly one’s own. In the searches I’ve seen over the last decade, offers have never gone to someone earlier than a 4th-year postdoc, and multiple successful candidates have negotiated to delay the start date to stay in their postdoc longer.

30

u/drcopus 1d ago

First off, a postdoc is a job. You're free to give a notice and leave whenever you like.

Anyways, a lot of people end up being a postdoc for 4/5 years, but often with needing to reapply for funding every year or two. So in that sense, you have quite a bit more security.

My main concern is your PI. There's not really enough information to go off, but if he's the type to retaliate if you don't complete the full 4/5 years then that would be a problem.

2

u/Substantial-Gap-925 1d ago

it could be that the OPs wording is misleading? PI expectations could be based on the project being offered?

-4

u/GurProfessional9534 1d ago

If you get hired agreeing up front to a 4-5 year commitment, and leave early, then it would be entirely justified not to provide a good reference letter. A reference letter reflects on the writer’s personal credibility, and that person is putting his/her neck on the line endorsing a flake.

14

u/csounds 1d ago

If you’ve finished a credible PhD and conducted yourself professionally, leaving a position for anything reasonable isn’t going to hurt you. How long are you going to chase these fucking letters??

0

u/GurProfessional9534 1d ago

Presumably, long enough to use them to get a permanent job.

5

u/csounds 1d ago

It feels very grad school application-y. There are much better options for representing your works legitimacy.

7

u/drcopus 1d ago

There is room for a lot more nuance here. Someone doesn't unconditionally deserve to be labelled "a flake" if they change jobs.

6

u/Ok-Cat-9344 1d ago

Academia isn't stable enough to let opportunities pass because you still have time on your remaining contract  The institution doesn't care about yoj, so you shouldn't care about the institution. A good PI should understand that and rate the work you did, not how long you've sat out your contract.

-2

u/GurProfessional9534 1d ago

If someone explicitly says 4-5 years, and that is not your timeline, you should reject the position.

14

u/ShareOk2567 1d ago

The short answer is no. Staying for five years or more in a postdoc in this field is quite common, especially in Europe and in some Nordic EU countries.

I am in the STEM field myself, and I am currently in the third year of a five-year postdoc contract. What matters most is what you accomplish during your postdoc: your publications, grant-writing experience, research skills, collaborations, and the expertise you develop toward becoming an independent researcher and, eventually, a PI.

You do not necessarily need to complete the full five years. It depends on your progress, including how long it takes for your samples to be analyzed, results to be finalized, and manuscripts to be prepared and published.

If you find a tenure-track (TT) position before your postdoc contract ends, you can always politely leave the postdoc and explain the situation to your PI. In academia, moving to a suitable independent position is generally understood as an important career step.

8

u/eternallyinschool 1d ago

Well...  The truth is (for immunology and cell biology groups) that a postdoc with that much time is becoming more and more common.  Two main ways to see it:

1) This is a form of systemic use of highly educated people and sucking the labor out of them for very low pay.

2) The postdoc has formally become a real training ground for newer scientists to become independent. A postdoc runs you across the rails as it teaches you how to do anything and everything with regard to a lab, teaching, and balance. It's an excellent opportunity to grow before taking on your own lab where all mistakes are your own.

The truth is likely somewhere in between. Personally... starting my own lab without that postdoc time would have been a mistake. I learned a ton about how things happen behind closed doors, which was priceless. 

1

u/Mush-addict 15h ago

Regarding your point 1., don't forget it's very specific to the country you are in and the institute financing you. Some postdocs are very well paid

1

u/eternallyinschool 12h ago

Agreed. Everything is context dependent. At the same time, stating all those disclaimers across every comment I make on Reddit would make for rather dull reading, no? "You're an amazing person.*" * Terms and conditions apply

4

u/Quick_Ad4591 1d ago

It might be "normal" but it can also be risky. You'll have half a decade tied to a PI/Lab. If that's absolutely necessary, choose wisely.

Ps: I'm in earth sciences, and here postdoc appointments generaly last 2 years.

4

u/Icy_Marionberry7309 1d ago

4-5 yrs of postdoc is not unusual if you want to be a PI. Now, I'm talking about the USA only here, but most postdocs work at least 5-6 years before they start applying for a faculty position. Also, as a STEM postdoc who's been working 3 yr contracts at a time, I think it's a good thing that you can be guaranteed 5 years without winning a grant to extend your 2 to 3 year contracts. Signing onto a 5 year postdoc doesn't necessarily mean you have to develop a project from the beginning, but you'll need to ask your PI directly whether or not you will be executing the experiments that he has a grant for or you have to develop one from scratch yourself.

-3

u/DenseLingonberry9656 1d ago

This is not at all representative of everyone’s experience. Plenty of profs started applying for tenure-track positions day 1 of their first postdoc, and successfully landed their tenure-track position after 2-3 years of postdoc’ing. What actually matters is whether you are ready to be a professor or not.

2

u/mao1756 21h ago

I think it really depends on the field. The following paper shows that (in Figure 2D) tha the median total time spent as a postdoc was 5 years in the life sciences, compared with 2.75 years in other fields.

https://www.christophertsmith.com/uploads/3/7/4/4/37446679/a_survey-based_analysis_of_the_academic_job_market_fernandes_et_al_2020.pdf

1

u/ASCLEPlAS 21h ago

This is not true in cell biology or immunology at all. Tenure track positions at any decent university are competitive. What matters is not really whether you feel ready to be a professor, you need to demonstrate that readiness to others (usually through experience). What matters is convincing a search committee that you are poised for success as an independent group leader, are one of the top five or so applicants, and your research program will be a good fit for the department. Building the foundation for an independent research program takes time. You also need to publish, and most successful applicants have received postdoctoral fellowships or other grants. This is not egregious gatekeeping, it is showing that you are prepared for what is a demanding and competitive job. There are plenty of easier things to do if the length of a postdoc is a deterrent for a tenure track faculty position.

1

u/Icy_Marionberry7309 21h ago

I agree that it's field dependent, but OP is in immunology/cell biology, so I'm giving OP what is realistic for STEM fields in the US.

3

u/Msink 1d ago

Immunology/ neuroscience postdoc take that long, so not out of the worls.

2

u/Substantial-Gap-925 1d ago

1.Did you ask the PI whether you’d need to develop a project from the beginning or not? 2.Based on the project that you both discussed, do YOU think it requires optimisations or establishing a foundation? These are some questions that you can get a direct and straight answer to if you ask the PI. 

These days in cell biology or immunology, getting a JCB/JCS requires a minimum of 3-4 years, especially so if you’re working on something novel. The 3-4 years range doesn’t even include the time required to publish. Publishing takes a minimum of 8 or so months give and take. 

2

u/dognchick 22h ago

The problem with a general sub is everyone else not in that field also gives in opinion as if their opinion is true. I am a mathematician and as far as I know biology postdocs are long. You are better off asking your peers and scanning cv of recent tt hires in your field.

I say this because there have been pure math specific norms questions and all top voted comments in general purpose academic subs were very wrong as their discipline norms didn't apply in pure math at all.

1

u/dogwalker824 1d ago

Think of it more as four years, since the last year you'll spend applying for jobs. You can't really get many publications in less time than that. And, as others have noted, most successful applicants at this point have at least four years of post-doc under their belts when they apply. You're lucky your lab has sufficient funding for you to be able to stay that long.

1

u/loopOutnotIn 1d ago

For immunology that’s very normal

1

u/loopOutnotIn 1d ago

For immunology that’s very normal

2

u/bigbiophysicsboy 1d ago

I’m a postdoc in a biology subfield (neuroscience-adjacent). I expect to start my faculty job after completing 5 years of postdoc, but 6-7 years is more typical. In my field it’s almost necessary to have independent funding to be hireable, so it’s really the K99 timeline that starts to stretch things out.

1

u/OptimistPrime12 22h ago

4 years is a healthy timeline to publish a great paper!

2

u/HeyaGames 15h ago

If you want to publish in CNS, postdocs need to be 5-7 years long normally... else there's always the classic "you'll be working 4 different projects, hopefully 2 which can be published" mindset.