faculty hiring

[echod]

---

Members do not see this ad.

What kind of funding are post-docs/fellows expected to secure to be considered competitive for a tenured track faculty position? K08? K99/R00? R01? Thanks!

 

[K31]

My impression is that, as a MD/PhD with a license to practice medicine, a career development award such as a K award is sufficient to get a tenure-track faculty position. The institution isn't taking that big of a risk on you--if you can't get funding, you can take on more clinical responsibilities to pay for yourself.

On the other hand, it seems that it is becoming more necessary for a PhD-only candidate (or MD/PhD without residency training) to have a R award in hand to get a tenure-track position. Not 100% yet, but becoming more needed as the funding situation fails to improve.

 

[echod]

My impression is that, as a MD/PhD with a license to practice medicine, a career development award such as a K award is sufficient to get a tenure-track faculty position. The institution isn't taking that big of a risk on you--if you can't get funding, you can take on more clinical responsibilities to pay for yourself.

On the other hand, it seems that it is becoming more necessary for a PhD-only candidate (or MD/PhD without residency training) to have a R award in hand to get a tenure-track position. Not 100% yet, but becoming more needed as the funding situation fails to improve.

This makes sense. The department that I work in is in the process of hiring a new faculty, and most the interviewees have a K99/R00. It's been a couple months, and no body has been hired so far. Is K99/R00 no longer enough? Funding might not be the only factor in hiring a faculty though.

 

[vitalamine]

I will tag along on this question and ask how feasible it is get a faculty position during the 3rd research year of a ABIM research track program?

I ask because I noticed the following on Pitt's website:
"The last year of research training may be undertaken in a full-time faculty position if the level of commitment to mentored research is maintained at 80%"
Source: http://residency.dom.pitt.edu/Program_Overview/tracks/abim.html (toward the bottom of the page).

I assume this depends on getting a K award? Anyone hear of other programs doing this?

 

[Neuronix]

What's tenure? Just kidding... Sort of.

IMO, the traditional idea of tenure that exists for a PhD doesn't exist now. If an institution wants to fire you, you will be fired. If you lose all your funding, you will have to do clinical work or leave. In the traditional undergrad model, you could make up some (or all) salary by teaching, but we're not undergrad teachers. Obtaining a tenure track position and being successful in obtaining tenure as a PhD as research fauclty is so incredibly competitive, I don't think it's a viable career goal for anyone starting out these days. Think on the order of a large start-up grant then obtaining two R01 level grants (12% funding rate) within 7 years. That said, this situation does not apply for us because we're clinicians. Or to put it another way, you avoid this situation by doing a residency and becoming board eligible/certified.

The answer for physicians and physician scientists is pretty nuanced and depends on the clinical department. There is a tremendous range of job opportunities out there within academics from 90% clinical to 90% research. The question is, what do you want on that spectrum? Do you want to be a clinical professor responsible for putting out clinical articles, teaching med students/residents, and putting in a lot of clinical service? Or do you want to be a mostly basic science researcher? If so, I read "tenure track" as "eligible to be promoted". So what gets you promotions? What secures your research time? Funding. You want to be put yourself in a position to get money. For that, you need protected time, lab space, equipment, help, etc...

So where do those resources come from? There are two possibilities: start up resources/insitutional resources and your own grants. Every position is going to have some expectation about grants you come in with, grants you're expected to get within a certain time frame, and a package they are willing to offer you (if anything beyond a secretary already shared with 5 other faculty). So to me, there's no right answer to your question. You'd be best served by talking with big league academic faculty in the specialty you're interested in to see what opportunities are around. That is, if you can get a straight answer. I find some faculty to be oddly avoidant about this topic.

But again, this is all department, personal goal, and specialty specific. To be more specific, some places in some specialties might be willing to hire you to do mostly research without a grant at all, and they'll assume you'll get one or have to go to clinical work. Some places in some specialties are going to want a large K award coming in the door. It all depends.

"The last year of research training may be undertaken in a full-time faculty position if the level of commitment to mentored research is maintained at 80%"

This means nothing to me. Fellow or faculty. It's just a title, like Mr or Miss. The question is, what does "faculty position" actually get you? Is it more salary? Is it certain benefits? Just because someone stuck "assistant professor", "adjunct professor", or "instructor" on to your official title, doesn't mean they're funding that position at all.

 

[gbwillner]

But again, this is all department, personal goal, and specialty specific. To be more specific, some places in some specialties might be willing to hire you to do mostly research without a grant at all, and they'll assume you'll get one or have to go to clinical work. Some places in some specialties are going to want a large K award coming in the door. It all depends.

This.

There is no "standard" here. I'm currently experiencing this. Top-tier academic institutions in my field will hire me out of fellowship as "instructor" and give me 80-100% protected research time. None top-tier places offer a start-up package and rank of assistant professor. It also depends on clinical need. You may be an awesome candidate to do pediatric genetics, but if there is no clinical need for another geneticist, you will have a hard time getting that job. Serendipity plays a large role when it actually comes time to get a job.

 

[tortuga87]

To be more specific, some places in some specialties might be willing to hire you to do mostly research without a grant at all, and they'll assume you'll get one or have to go to clinical work.

Does anyone know what these specialties are? The ones where it's easier to get a mostly research job

 

[Underarchiever]

What kind of funding are post-docs/fellows expected to secure to be considered competitive for a tenured track faculty position? K08? K99/R00? R01? Thanks!

I am not sure KO8. I was found overqualified when I applied for it twenty years ago. This forced me to go straight to RO1 and other federal agencies. I was converted from clinical track to tenure track at the time of obtaining several fundings including a RO1. After renewing my RO1, I was tenured. You need a lot of dedication to research in order to get tenure. It is not easy. If you want to go this route, please do as little clinical work as possible. Clinical work does not contribute much towards your academic career. Most of the leadership positions in my field are held by physician scientists. This trend will continue.

 

[Neuronix]

Does anyone know what these specialties are? The ones where it's easier to get a mostly research job

There are different philosophies on this. The faculty in heavy research specialties like top-tier medicine and pathology complain that there is too much competition and not enough money in the departments to justify hiring/startup resources which make positions limited/competitive. The faculty in specialties that are not known for research complain there is too much money from clinical work pushing them to be more clinical. There is no good answer to the question, and like gbwillner said, it's more about serendipity than anything else. I make the argument to just do what interests you.

 

[dl2dp2]

I am not sure KO8. I was found overqualified when I applied for it twenty years ago. This forced me to go straight to RO1 and other federal agencies. I was converted from clinical track to tenure track at the time of obtaining several fundings including a RO1. After renewing my RO1, I was tenured. You need a lot of dedication to research in order to get tenure. It is not easy. If you want to go this route, please do as little clinical work as possible. Clinical work does not contribute much towards your academic career. Most of the leadership positions in my field are held by physician scientists. This trend will continue.

With due respect, what's going on 20 years ago is no longer the case today. Extremely rare for a first time MD/PhD applicant to have an R01 in hand while shopping for a faculty position. This however, may not be a bad thing, because depending on the institution, your tenure clock might start a bit later (i.e. when the mentored phase is over). The K series funding rates are also a lot higher. Salary's also not completely tied down to the grant--more related to your rank, amount of clinical revenue etc. In terms of general gestalt for the OP's question, I would say that once you have a promising K, even if it's not fully funded (i.e. in revision etc., but has a good number), your home program would most likely keep you in the cognitive specialties (IM, path, psych, neuro etc.) with a standard salary similar to their usual full time clinical academic faculty. In procedural specialties, you likely could get away getting at least a 50% research position, although sample size here is TINY, and you might be forced to take a pay cut. But multiple people told me that once you have a K you have the option to shop around for things like start-up and ancillary support, other perks, etc. Remember also that there's another steep drop between K and R, with many K funders never move on to R, especially the MD-onlys. LOTS of points of attrition for a physician scientist: MDPhD graduation to residency--if you decide to ditch research, then after residency at fellowship, then after fellowship at K, then after K at R, the after first R at the R renewal, then after the R renewal at the 2nd R (a.k.a. tenure review.). It's a marathon! But things open up. Once you have a K likely there are a panoply of options out there, and once you have a history of an R, you likely not so much "drop out" as moving on to greener pastures (i.e. pharma, $$ private practice etc.)

So I guess the take home message, to me and to you, is to RELAX! and enjoy the ride. Do whatever makes you happy and don't be afraid to take some risks. Yes the salary's lower but it's by no means unlivable. Grants are hard to get, but you'll have help. And if you don't get where you want to be, you can still do private practice and double your salary. THINGS WILL WORK OUT IN THE END. YOU WIN NO MATTER WHAT.

In the basic sciences, which I also know a bit about but isn't personally intimate with, things are a bit different and more egregious, and it's also very rare to have a R01 in hand. In fact it's very rare to have a K in hand, and a lot of times people with good connections and publication records just get tenure track offers, usually with a certain amount of start-up. I think most institutions would prefer to get a US born/trained postdoc from a Nobel/famous person's lab with an enthusiastic endorsement from various chairs and a few nature papers, but no solid funding as yet, than an international applicant who just chanced on a K99 with a solid but not exceptional pub list. This is unfair but seemingly how things are going these days. If you want to play that game I suggest checking out the list of HHMI/Nobel and the related labs in your field that publish routinely in Nature/Science/Cell and go there. You can always chase after your pet dream after you get your lab funded and have some slush fund and a gullible minion. I'm pretty sure that if you do two rounds of postdocs at two Nobel level labs with solid papers, you have 90%+ chance of getting a tenure track job at a respectable major research institution. And don't tell me "oh but he's working on the wrong system," or "oh he doesn't do the technique I want to do..." It's not about that at all. It's the networking and connections. You go to his lab and pitch your idea to him and CONVINCE him to do what you want to do, then BRING IN the techniques you want. If you want to be a PI, you have to think like one. To just roll with my soap box a bit more, this game unfortunately is gratuitous, especially for women in science, because this idea of "pitching" anything is especially alien, but unfortunately it's the way things are going right now. There's just no place in the system for a large number of people who want to get a decent salary and just do science on daily basis, as opposed to devote a career to schmoozing and fighting reviewers.

 

[Underarchiever]

With due respect, what's going on 20 years ago is no longer the case today. Extremely rare for a first time MD/PhD applicant to have an R01 in hand while shopping for a faculty position. This however, may not be a bad thing, because depending on the institution, your tenure clock might start a bit later (i.e. when the mentored phase is over). The K series funding rates are also a lot higher. Salary's also not completely tied down to the grant--more related to your rank, amount of clinical revenue etc. In terms of general gestalt for the OP's question, I would say that once you have a promising K, even if it's not fully funded (i.e. in revision etc., but has a good number), your home program would most likely keep you in the cognitive specialties (IM, path, psych, neuro etc.) with a standard salary similar to their usual full time clinical academic faculty. In procedural specialties, you likely could get away getting at least a 50% research position, although sample size here is TINY, and you might be forced to take a pay cut. But multiple people told me that once you have a K you have the option to shop around for things like start-up and ancillary support, other perks, etc. Remember also that there's another steep drop between K and R, with many K funders never move on to R, especially the MD-onlys. LOTS of points of attrition for a physician scientist: MDPhD graduation to residency--if you decide to ditch research, then after residency at fellowship, then after fellowship at K, then after K at R, the after first R at the R renewal, then after the R renewal at the 2nd R (a.k.a. tenure review.). It's a marathon! But things open up. Once you have a K likely there are a panoply of options out there, and once you have a history of an R, you likely not so much "drop out" as moving on to greener pastures (i.e. pharma, $$ private practice etc.)

So I guess the take home message, to me and to you, is to RELAX! and enjoy the ride. Do whatever makes you happy and don't be afraid to take some risks. Yes the salary's lower but it's by no means unlivable. Grants are hard to get, but you'll have help. And if you don't get where you want to be, you can still do private practice and double your salary. THINGS WILL WORK OUT IN THE END. YOU WIN NO MATTER WHAT.

In the basic sciences, which I also know a bit about but isn't personally intimate with, things are a bit different and more egregious, and it's also very rare to have a R01 in hand. In fact it's very rare to have a K in hand, and a lot of times people with good connections and publication records just get tenure track offers, usually with a certain amount of start-up. I think most institutions would prefer to get a US born/trained postdoc from a Nobel/famous person's lab with an enthusiastic endorsement from various chairs and a few nature papers, but no solid funding as yet, than an international applicant who just chanced on a K99 with a solid but not exceptional pub list. This is unfair but seemingly how things are going these days. If you want to play that game I suggest checking out the list of HHMI/Nobel and the related labs in your field that publish routinely in Nature/Science/Cell and go there. You can always chase after your pet dream after you get your lab funded and have some slush fund and a gullible minion. I'm pretty sure that if you do two rounds of postdocs at two Nobel level labs with solid papers, you have 90%+ chance of getting a tenure track job at a respectable major research institution. And don't tell me "oh but he's working on the wrong system," or "oh he doesn't do the technique I want to do..." It's not about that at all. It's the networking and connections. You go to his lab and pitch your idea to him and CONVINCE him to do what you want to do, then BRING IN the techniques you want. If you want to be a PI, you have to think like one. To just roll with my soap box a bit more, this game unfortunately is gratuitous, especially for women in science, because this idea of "pitching" anything is especially alien, but unfortunately it's the way things are going right now. There's just no place in the system for a large number of people who want to get a decent salary and just do science on daily basis, as opposed to devote a career to schmoozing and fighting reviewers.

K grant holder is not very marketable. But it is better than none. I have been involving in faculty hiring the last several years. We are looking for investigators with sustaining NIH funding. For entry level, a track record of high quality papers, effective references and some funding will be competitive regardless K or private foundations. Most of the K grant people are from internal track. We encourage them to look for other opportunities after K runs out. Those moving to obtain RO1 are the ones we want to keep. In my specialty, tenured physician scientist salary is higher than that in clinical track. It is not very good to stay in academic if you are not doing science, since private practice may give you more financial reward.

 

[Neuronix]

Those moving to obtain RO1 are the ones we want to keep.

Yeah, I mean what's the problem with this? Seventh percentile payline on R01. No problem at all.

[/sarcasm]

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Given the dismal funding situation in the US, what's the research funding situation like abroad (specifically Europe, Australia, Canada, etc.)? Surely they give less money, but what's the competition like?

 

[delirium81]

Given the dismal funding situation in the US, what's the research funding situation like abroad (specifically Europe, Australia, Canada, etc.)? Surely they give less money, but what's the competition like?

I've heard that it's extremely difficult to get funding in France. They produce many more science PhDs than they have positions for, and in fact French post-docs are given a time limit. If they haven't gotten a position in France by a certain age then they can pretty much never work as a PI there. I don't know anything about the process of trying to get a position there as a foreigner, but I would guess that it's near impossible unless you already walk on water. I can't imagine that it's much easier in other Western European countries, but maybe there are some exceptions that others know something about?