(and my comment is amusing, in light of the previous comment, which I have now read after writing my own comment).
Is the above commenter an academic, I wonder. Or so certain about what he/she should be doing / is doing that he/she does not see fit to accept external definitions of roles?
I've been a postdoc for 4 years. The essay is useless to me because it is too theoretical. Postdoc positions exist because of the large number of PhDs and small number of faculty jobs. The author concludes saying that once you've been a good postdoc and have achieved all the things she describes you might be able to reach the "next level". So, 50 years ago when postdocs almost didn't exist professors were not as good as they are nowadays, I guess...
I appreciate (and largely agree with) your cynicism! However, I did find it comforting to stumble upon this succinct explanation of my "purpose".
I also found it funny that a magazine feature dedicated to succinctly explaining things like "Cerenkov radiation" or "neutrino mixing" had an entry for "postdocs". (-:
no subject
Is the above commenter an academic, I wonder. Or so certain about what he/she should be doing / is doing that he/she does not see fit to accept external definitions of roles?
no subject
no subject
I also found it funny that a magazine feature dedicated to succinctly explaining things like "Cerenkov radiation" or "neutrino mixing" had an entry for "postdocs". (-: