I've heard professors complain that they don't get good postdoc applications. I wonder what would happen if they offered more money?
Lots of synthetic postdocs, but some profs, even in good dpts, can't get applicants.University of Minnesota professor Chris Cramer observed in reply:
Skeptical. NRC offers HUGE salary, and I've heard sponsors complain of poor applicant pools. $ not primary factor for most.
& I guess I'd argue that they should compare their reputations against competitors. Its a buyers' market for the "best" PhDs.I assume that people do not make their decisions based on postdoc salaries, but based on things like the field they wish to study, the reputation of the adviser, the likelihood of the adviser to help them get to where they they want to go (career-wise), geography, their personal 2-body problem, etc. Most of these issues are a balance of quality of life and long-term monetary issues -- increasing someone's pay for 2 years (or so) just is not a enough of a lever to make a difference, I would think. (Of course, graduate students seem to occasionally choose schools based on the stipend, so maybe they do -- who knows?)
[I should note here that I took an industrial postdoc with a large pharma, so my experience was much more like an industrial position than anything else, except that the HR person told me what my salary would be. It was an advertised opening, even. (I love you, back of C&EN.) It was a relatively desirable geographical area, my wife wouldn't have trouble with her career, it was pretty much a done deal. It was nice.]
I wonder if there's room for someone (ACS, whomever) to facilitate a smoother process of applying for postdoctoral fellowships and for younger professors to get attention?
Readers, what do you think?