Articles pubilshed by the UCCPS.
Brought to you by
The Council of Postdoctoral Scholars has made great strides within a very short period of time. We provide a needed conduit between UC administration, faculty, and postdocs.
TOM PEAVY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
UNITED STATES
5 APRIL 2002
Bringing together postdocs on a single campus is no easy task. Imagine organizing a postdoctoral council with representatives from the nine University of California (UC) campuses! Considering estimates that there are 5000 postdocs in the UC system, about 10% of the national postdoc population, we believe that UC postdoctoral policies and practices have a significant impact far beyond the UC campuses.
An early experience while a postdoc at UC Davis spurred me to get involved in developing postdoc policies. My appointment status changed from employee (postgraduate researcher) to nonemployee (unclassified) when I was awarded an NIH National Research Service Award fellowship. It was then that I learned that not all postdoc positions are created equally. The change in my status resulted in the loss of several institutional benefits including health insurance and new limits to my library access. During my year-long struggle to regain full library privileges, I realized that we postdocs needed to take a more active role to improve our situations. With several other postdocs, I formed the UC Davis Postdoctoral Scholars Association (PSA).
Tom Peavy will be a speaker at the 2nd National Postdoc Network Conference, held 20 April 2002 in Washington, D.C. There is more information here.
As chair of the PSA, I served as the postdoc representative on the UC Davis Graduate Council, the academic faculty committee responsible for postdocs. In February 2001, the PSA presented the council its recommendations to improve postdoctoral policies and practices at UC Davis. While the council's review was favorable, it became evident that some of our recommendations could only be addressed at the UC system level. For example, we recommended that a single title code be adopted for all postdoctoral appointments. We knew that UC Davis postdocs are appointed under a multitude of titles (e.g., postgraduate researcher, visiting postdoctoral scholar, and unclassified) but learned that in the UC Title Code System, there are even more titles used to code postdoctoral appointments. These different title codes are significant not only because they make it very difficult to identify and track postdocs but, more importantly, they define attributes such as benefits offered and salary ranges.
And thus it became my mission to organize a meeting of postdocs from all of the UC campuses and to create a postdoc association that could represent the interests of all UC postdocs to administrators and faculty.
The timing of the national postdoc meetings sponsored by the COSEPUP Convocation on Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience of Scientists and Engineers and the first national Postdoc Network meeting sponsored by Science's Next Wave couldn't have been more perfect. During the COSEPUP Open Microphone Session, I invited other UC postdocs to join me in exploring the idea of forming an UC-wide organization. Mary O'Riordan, president of the UC Berkeley Postdoctoral Association and Teresa Dillinger, past chair of the UC Davis PSA, joined me in organizing the meeting.
Upon returning to California we set about contacting postdocs at the other UC campuses. Only Davis, Berkeley, and San Francisco have postdoc associations. On the other campuses, we contacted both postdocs and administrative offices responsible for postdocs (i.e., Graduate Studies, Graduate Division, or Office of Research). A date was set, and the UC Davis PSA offered travel grants to those needing assistance getting to Davis for the meeting. In the end, we brought together postdocs representing seven of the nine UC campuses, as well as a postdoc representing the Stanford University Postdoc Association.
At the meeting, we found that almost all of our issues and concerns were common to every campus. Our discussion included examining the processes by which policy is made within the UC system and how we might develop a strategy to address our issues. We unanimously decided to form a UC-wide postdoc association, the Council of Postdoctoral Scholars (CPS), to which I was elected founding chair.
The goals of CPS are
to foster communication between UC postdocs, administration, and faculty;
to work with UC to ensure equitable treatment of postdocs; and
to facilitate a productive climate for postdoctoral training on local campuses.
My first duty as chair was to seek contact with and recognition by the Office of the President and two UC-wide committees responsible for postdoc policy and practices: the Coordinating Committee on Graduate Affairs (CCGA), which handles academic affairs, and the Council of Graduate Deans (CoGD), which deals with administrative affairs. CPS has now participated in meetings with both CCGA and CoGD to discuss postdoctoral issues. All were in support of the development of new policies and practices to enhance the postdoctoral experience. In 1998 CoGD had issued recommendations to improve postdoctoral education and has since been working on proposals for implementation. After our meeting, CoGD's current chair, Davis's Dean of Graduate Studies Cristina Gonzalez, assigned the creation of postdoctoral title code(s) as a priority.
CPS now has representatives from all nine UC campuses. We have had two meetings that have included representatives from the three UC administrative branches. Our first priorities have included the establishment of a minimum salary and full insurance coverage, without regard to funding source. In principle we have agreed on many issues, but there is much to be done as we work out the specifics. Fortunately, there is a desire on all sides to do so.
CPS has made great strides within a very short period of time. We provide a needed conduit between UC administration, faculty, and postdocs. Although policy implementation often moves at a glacial pace, moving through committee after committee, I am optimistic about positive change within the UC system in the near future. Please visit our Web site to find out more about CPS, to view our recommendations, to see who have helped us get where we are, and to remain updated on our progress.
Taking Postdoctoral Needs Seriously: The Office of Academic Career Development at the University of Pittsburgh
By Jennifer Petrie, 4 Apr 2003
The Next Step in Evolution: Cross-Institutional Postdoc Organizations
By Aparna Sreenivasan, 21 Feb 2003
Acknowledgements for the Postdoc Network Article
"All for One, and One for All: Creation of a UC-wide Postdoc Association"
In addition to those listed in the article, I want to acknowledge the CPS members and the following individuals who have had a significant influence on my endeavors:
CPS: Paulo Verardi (Davis), Dagmar Truckses (Berkeley), Lisa Rogers (Los Angeles), Grace Stutzman and Karen Nowak (Irvine), Xiangyang Zhou (Riverside), Tara Chapman and Raymond Clark (San Diego), Luanna Putney and Melissa Woodrow (San Francisco), Jan Sumerel (Santa Barbara), Jennifer Armstrong and Renee Baran (Santa Cruz), and Megan Houseweart (Stanford).
Faculty: Prof. Jerry Hedrick, Prof. Chris Calvert, Prof. John Labavitch, Prof. Judy Callis, and Prof. Cliff Brunk.
Administrators and Staff: UCOP Assistant Vice President of Academic Advancement, Ellen Switkes; UCSF Dean Clifford Atkinson; UCR Dean Neil Schiller; UCSD Dean Richard Attiyeh; UCR Assoc. Dean Douglas Minnis; UCSD Asst. Dean Jean Fort; UCD Asst. Dean Charlie Duffy; UCB Postdoctoral Affairs Coordinator Sam Castaneda; and UCD Graduate Program Analyst Ms. Lee Wilce
The Postdoctoral Scholar's Mentoring Checklist was designed to assist the postdoctoral scholar and his/her mentor in developing the best postdoctoral experience possible by providing a framework for periodic discussions. The checklist items are based on the experiences of many postdoctoral scholars from around the world, and, while it is certainly not a complete list, it offers a range of issues to consider at various stages of the postdoctoral appointment
Click here to download the Postdoctoral Scholar's Mentoring Checklist (PDF).
The UC Council of Postdoctoral Scholars (CPS) was formed in the spring of 01 to facilitate improvements in postdoctoral training within the UC system. CPS is comprised of postdoctoral representatives from each of the nine UC campuses. The aim of this group is to provide input into the development and improvement of postdoctoral policies and practices that ultimately affect our careers beyond the postdoctoral training period. To this end, CPS recommends specific improvements to postdoctoral training at the University of California for consideration by the Office of the President, system-wide committees, and campus Graduate Councils and administrators.
The CPS believes postdoctoral scholars are a vital and indispensable component of the research performed at the University of California. Postdoctoral training is intended to be an intermediate step in which we build upon and augment our research proficiency along with other skills that are essential for our career development. The UC system in turn has a responsibility to provide adequate training and resources for their postdocs. As stated in the guide entitled Enhancing the Postdoctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/pd/postdoc.nsf; pg 70) by the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), "Institutions benefit in many ways from the presence and activities of post-docs85In return, institutions have the responsibility to support their postdocs with adequate compensation and benefits, a supportive infrastructure and working conditions, appropriate institutional recognition and standing, and mechanisms for advancing their careers and finding subsequent positions."
The CPS acknowledges and concurs with the recommendations made by the Council of Graduate Deans (CoGD) Report on Postdoctoral Education at UC (http://www-ogsr.ucsd.edu/PostdocEdu/intro.htm), the Association of American Universities Committee on Postdoctoral Education Report and Recommendations (http://www.aau.edu/reports/PostdocRpt.pdf), and COSEPUP's recommendations as referred to above. The following recommendations drafted by CPS incorporate current concerns and perspectives from UC postdocs.
1) A specific title code for postdoctoral appointments should be created that includes the following: full benefits, minimum salary, full-time position described as 100% effort, investment options, leave policies, five year term maximum, grievance policy, yearly written evaluations, and appointment conditions specified.
Currently, postdocs at UC campuses are classified into one of many title code categories (eg. Postdoctoral Scholar, Visiting Postdoctoral Employee, Visiting Stipend Postdoctoral Fellow, Postdoctoral Fellow, Postgraduate Researcher, Staff Research Associate, Research Scientist, Research Specialist, and Unclassified). Often these title codes are also used for individuals who are not postdocs (eg. post-baccalaureate researchers in the Postgraduate Researcher series). This administrative system makes it difficult to identify and track postdocs which in effect isolates them. Postdocs frequently do not receive pertinent information because of this inadequate system.
Full benefits (medical, dental and vision) should be provided to all UC postdocs, regardless of funding source. The benefits packages offered in the different title codes range from full employee benefits to none at all. Healthcare is an important issue for postdocs especially since a significant proportion have families. This is an undue hardship for those who have less than full benefits. Postdocs should be entitled to adequate compensation for their research efforts. Presently, the system allows for principal investigators to negotiate with postdoc candidates without consideration of a fair wage. This system facilitates inequities. Postdocs may not be skilled negotiators nor have all the information necessary to assess an offer. In particular, foreign postdocs may have difficulty gathering information or speaking up for themselves. A minimum salary should be set for postdocs that should be adjusted for years of experience and differences in the cost of living at specific campus locations. The Council of Graduate Deans report recommended setting "the minimum to equal the NIH minimum". We agree that this is a reasonable proposition, but we acknowledge the conflicts inherent in linking UC postdoctoral salary scales to one specific federal funding agency. Funding for postdocs comes from a variety of sources.
Instead, we recommend basing postdoc salaries on those received by graduate students. Postdoc salaries are required to be higher than graduate student compensation levels. In an Audit of Graduate Student Compensation at Selected Universities (http://oig.hhs.gov/oas/reports/region1/19404002.pdf) by the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Inspector General reported the use of Federal research grant funds for graduate student compensation (includes salary or wages, fringe benefits, and tuition remission) as "unreasonably" high because there were instances in which they were greater than postdoc starting salaries. This report impacts the interpretation of "reasonable compensation for work performed" by graduate students from the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-21 (section J.41.a) Cost Principles for Educational Institutions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a021/a021.html).
In addition, the NIH established a graduate student compensation policy (http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-017.html) stating that compensation must not be higher than the NRSA starting postdoc stipend. Thus, postdoc minimums are required to be greater than graduate student levels. Also, graduate students can only be hired at a maximum 50% appointment time to maintain full-time student status. Postdocs are no longer students and have skills and experience that should be rewarded by appropriate compensation in between that of graduate student levels and that received for research staff and faculty positions. The current NIH NRSA starting postdoc stipend (http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-028.html) is a reasonable minimum salary.
Full-time postdoctoral positions should be specified as 100% effort. Some title codes stipulate salary ranges for 100% appointments (e.g. Postgraduate Researcher), but can be circumvented by manipulating the percent time appointed. This practice inaccurately depicts the terms of appointment and does not reflect the postdoc's efforts.
Postdocs should be given the option to contribute towards investment plans for their financial planning. Flexible and mobile plans such as defined contribution plans would enable postdocs to maintain their investment plans when transitioning into the job market.
Leave policies equivalent to that available to UC employees need to be established for the postdoctoral title code(s). Presently, postdocs are often subject to the policies set by the principal investigator. Consistent and fair leave policies need to be explicitly stated so no misunderstandings occur.
An individual should not remain as a postdoc for greater than five years total. Postdoctoral appointments were not intended to be a holding pattern but rather an intermediate step in one's career. A postdoc who remains in this position for longer than five years does not truly advance their career opportunities. It is essential that institutions provide career resources and that postdoc mentors provide advice and assistance to help transition their postdocs into a position that will advance their careers.
A suitable grievance procedure should be fashioned to account for the distinctive relationship between postdoc and advisor. Considerable effort should be given to resolving grievances prior to filing a written complaint. Postdocs are reliant on their advisor's support and future recommendation so rushing to file a complaint would most likely damage their relationship. Thus, we recommend that the time period between the incident (leading to the grievance) and the requirement to file a formal grievance be at least 60 days. In addition, multiple options should be available to help resolve the conflict (e.g. other faculty within and outside of host department, mediation services, etc.).
Postdoctoral advisors should provide yearly written evaluations of the postdoc's performance. Postdocs rely on their advisor's written recommendations for subsequent employment opportunities. Hence, a postdoc should be aware of how well they have met the expectations of their advisor and be given opportunities to improve. It would also be beneficial to the advisor to know whether they have met the training needs of their postdoc.
The job description and expectations of the postdoc appointment need to be explicitly stated and agreed upon by the postdoc, principal investigator and relevant administrators to avoid misunderstandings. We suggest a two-step process. The first is an offer letter for the postdoctoral position that gives a brief explanation of the research project(s), amount of stipend, benefits offered, and the length of appointment. The second is an appointment letter that details the terms of the appointment and that is to be signed by the postdoc, faculty advisor, and appropriate administrator(s). We suggest the following items be included in the appointment letter (modified slightly from the COSEPUP guide, pg 46):
2) Postdoctoral Coordinator positions should be established on each campus.
While we acknowledge the pivotal and primary role of the faculty member to mentor and guide the postdoctoral scholar, we maintain that postdocs need institutional support from administrative staff. A staff position that coordinates postdoctoral affairs on the campus would ensure the proper implementation of procedures and policies without creating conflict between mentors and their postdocs. Thus, the postdoctoral coordinator would serve as liaison between administration, faculty and postdocs. Postdocs need a coordinator to provide them with essential information and help them navigate within the system. Other staff duties that are needed include accounting for and tracking postdocs, filing appointment forms, sending out memos, ensuring benefits are provided, and making sure evaluation forms are completed.
3) High-quality mentorship and training of postdocs should be valued, recognized, and advocated.
Postdoctoral scholars are not simply another pair of hired hands to perform research. Often, postdocs do not receive guidance or additional training to prepare them for the job market. As stated in COSEPUP's guide, "The advisor's overall responsibility is to help advance the postdoc's scientific abilities and professional career. The advisor who regards a postdoc as a colleague-in-the-making will gain in productivity and rise in the estimation of other researchers." Postdoctoral advisor's should take responsibility for the mentorship and training of their postdocs and foster a relationship in which the postdoc can develop and flourish. Institutions need to value and recognize high-quality mentorship and training of their postdocs because productivity and fulfillment depend upon it. UC should advocate good mentorship practices by providing guidelines for faculty. These guidelines should be general enough to apply to all disciplines. We recommend more specific guidelines for disciplines to be created by departments, sections or divisions. In addition, we recommend that good mentorship be rewarded and included in the overall assessment of faculty job performance.
4) Career Services.
Institutions need to provide career resources for their postdocs to facilitate their transition into the job market. When postdocs were surveyed (http://postdocs.ucdavis.edu/surveyresults.html; http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Dean_of_the_Faculty/bupa/surveyresults.html), they expressed the need for career and professional development services to help them meet their career objectives. Too many postdocs search for academic faculty positions without sufficient knowledge of successful job search strategies nor essential training and experience in teaching. Institutions should offer pedagogical training for these individuals, many of whom will be the professors of the future. Resource centers (e.g. career centers and teaching resource centers) need specialized staff to assist postdoctoral scholars. In addition, workshops, seminars and programs targeting the needs of postdocs should be offered to enhance and develop their job search skills to successfully enter the job market both inside and outside of academia. Information and seminars on careers outside of academia should be provided. Career fairs that bring in potential employers (e.g. biotech companies) should be regularly scheduled or, where they already exist, made more accessible to postdoctoral scholars.
Postdoctoral scholars require both assistance and support from their campus administrators and faculty members to enhance the postdoctoral experience. The goals of CPS are to foster communication with university administration and faculty, to work together with the University of California to ensure equitable treatment of postdocs, and to foster a productive climate for postdoctoral training on our individual campuses. We submit our council's recommendations with the intention of further facilitating positive change and to provide an UC-wide postdoctoral viewpoint on these matters. The total number of UC postdoctoral scholars is currently estimated to be over 5000 (unfortunately, no exact count is available due to title code disparities) and may represent ten percent of the total US postdoc population. Accordingly, postdoctoral policies set by the University of California have a significant impact on the postdoctoral population as a whole and will be looked to nationwide. Attention on postdoctoral affairs is overdue and urgently needed. We look forward to the implementation of these recommendations and would welcome the opportunity to provide any assistance or further information towards the implementation of this goal.
Approved by CPS
March 12, 02
TO: University of California (UC) Career Services and Center Directors; and
Valery Oehler, Associate Director, Campus Life, UCOP.
FROM: UC Council of Postdoctoral Scholars (CPS); www.ucpostdoc.org
DATE: November 8, 2007
SUBJECT: Postdoctoral scholar access to Career Services
The CPS is expressing the desire of UC postdoctoral scholars to access services and resources of campus Career Centers. Currently, such access varies considerably from campus to campus. Our motivation is reflected in recent national reports recommending that postdoctoral scientists should receive improved career advising, mentoring, and skills training (1, 2). We note that some UC peer institutions offer postdoctoral scholars full access to career services (3). Each UC campus should also strive to remain competitive in recruiting and retaining postdoctoral scholars since they are an integral part of an institution’s research success (1). Finally, we surmise that if the UC system establishes a standard for Career Center openness, then the national affect may have a profound impact on the careers of UC Ph.D. graduates who pursue postdoctoral training elsewhere.
Therefore, the CPS would like to work collaboratively with UC Career Center Directors toward the following goals for postdoc access to:
Initial objectives requiring minimal resources could include the following:
We recognize that a lack of funds and personnel currently limit the ability of Career Centers to provide full services to all postdocs. Thus, CPS suggests opening a dialog with the Career Center Directors and the UC President's Office to identify budgetary, personnel, and administrative needs in order to achieve the aforementioned goals. We anticipate that the last objective described above would motivate postdoc leaders to champion these issues with the appropriate stakeholders to bring career services to all UC postdocs.
Follow up communications should be directed to the current CPS Chair, Jason Triplett (UC-Santa Cruz postdoc) at jwtriple[AT]ucsc[DOT]edu.
Note that the next CPS meeting is scheduled for January 2008 at UCLA.
REFERENCES:
1. Sigma Xi postdoc survey, 2005; http://postdoc.sigmaxi.org
2. Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research, National Academies Press, 2005
3. Caltech, Rice Univ., Stanford Univ., UC-Davis, UCSF, Univ. of Alberta, Univ. of Chicago, Univ. of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, and Washington Univ. in St. Louis. Responses to informal survey at:
http://listserv.aaas.org/pipermail/postdocnet/2005-June/thread.html#41
Prepared by Alberto Roca (UCI), Ajaykumar Gopal (UCLA), Markus Kaufmann (UCLA), and Jason Triplett (UCSC).
COUNCIL OF POSTDOCTORAL SCHOLARS
MISSION
To address the distinct needs of postdoctoral researchers in academic institutions
Postdoctoral employment has become a key step in progression towards an academic career. However, there is little organizational recognition or support in academic institutions for postdoctoral programs. The Council of Postdoctoral Scholars aims to address this by bringing standardization to these programs. We aim to bring systematic and organizational backing for postdoctoral researchers as opposed to the currently individual faculty level support they have.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Key objectives of the CPS strategy towards attaining the mission are listed below.
Collect statistics across institutions on the current trends in postdoctoral programs: Number of new faculty that were postdocs, age/years of appointment / diversity / sex / wages / nationality of postdoctoral scholars, number of postdocs / department/research group/university.
Identify and lobby key policy makers to evolve postdoctoral programs to reflect their increasing importance and duration in academic research and teaching careers. Raise awareness among university administrators about the evolution of postdoctoral programs into a regular and essential part of academic training, and the need for standardization.
Create a newsletter to regularly disseminate information and opinions of relevance to policy makers and postdoctoral scholars. Information may include workshop/job announcements, statistics on the disparities of postdoctoral benefits, faculty education etc.
Build a financial base to fund activities specifically aimed at postdoctoral scholars. Suggest charging a fee for every postdoctoral appointment to be used to finance career services, workshops, postdoctoral administration etc.
SHORT TERM GOALS (in 12-24 months)
· Meet at UCOP and invite key people for discussions and increasing awareness.
· Bring out a newsletter to be distributed across campuses and UCOP
· Initiate discussions on funding postdoctoral associations at different campuses
· Hold seminars of interest to postdoctoral career advancement.
LONG TERM GOALS
· Turn into a lobby group for post-doc affairs
· Gain a required presence in administrative decisions affecting postdocs - hiring of senior staff, budgeting, policy decisions etc.
· Standardize the postdoctoral experience across all disciplines and universities and be the 'go to' group to define the standards.