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.

Recommendations

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):

• Offer of postdoctoral position, with brief explanation of research project(s)
• Effective date of appointment, amount of stipend, source (and expiration date) of funding and payroll information
• Length of appointment (e.g. annual, with reappointment contingent on satisfactory performance)
• Leave policies
• Copy of institutional policies attached with letter
• Health insurance information and requirements and a description of benefits that are not provided
• Intellectual property policy and agreement (enclosed for signature)
• Work eligibility requirements for U.S. citizens and foreign nationals
• Signature of administrator to assure proper preparation of appointment letter
• Signature of principal investigator
• Request for proof of doctoral degree (diploma or registrar statement)
• Request for candidate's signature and return of letter by given date

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.

Summary

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