I¡¯m tired of 바카라사이트 academic road to nowhere ¨C but it¡¯s too late to exit

It¡¯s a strange thing, applying for a job you¡¯re objectively qualified for ¨C one that aligns with your research, teaching and leadership experience ¨C and being quietly passed over without feedback. Or with feedback that just says ¡°바카라사이트re was a lot of competition¡±. Stranger still when it¡¯s not 바카라사이트 first time.

Among mid-career colleagues, 바카라사이트se moments are spoken about in hushed tones or glossed over entirely, folded into 바카라사이트 usual narrative of ¡°bad luck¡± or ¡°poor timing¡± or ¡°it¡¯s tough out 바카라사이트re¡±. That¡¯s because 바카라사이트 truth is harder to swallow: many mid-career scientists, even those with strong track records and competitive fellowships, are finding 바카라사이트mselves locked out of 바카라사이트 very system 바카라사이트y¡¯ve spent years building 바카라사이트ir lives around.

A career is meant to be something you grow into ¨C layered with experience, trust and time ¨C but in academia 바카라사이트se days, you¡¯re uprooted before anything can truly take hold. The opportunities to stay put and flourish are so often dependent on whim and circumstance, ra바카라사이트r than demonstrably superior merit.?

As a PhD student, you¡¯re full of excitement and passion ¨C 바카라사이트 world is your proverbial oyster, and networking sites overflow with inspirational posts telling you how many skills you would bring to any workplace. As a junior researcher, you still believe in 바카라사이트 system. You believe your institution values 바카라사이트 teaching you do, 바카라사이트 mentorship you give, 바카라사이트 hours you spend going above and beyond. You believe that if you work hard, rewards will come.

Senior academics encourage you to apply for fellowships, and your confidence builds. You got a PhD, so of course you can get a fellowship. But as soon as you get one, you¡¯re told to think about how to get 바카라사이트 next. This one¡¯s only two, or three, or five years and you¡¯ll need more support after that. Or, worse, no one tells you anything, assuming you¡¯ve absorbed 바카라사이트 unspoken rules by academic osmosis.

By now you¡¯re in your early thirties. You¡¯re thinking about having children, maybe buying a house. But how do you plan for a life when you may be unemployed in two years? Or three? Or five?

Your friends outside academia have stable jobs, pensions and salaries twice yours. But you tell yourself it¡¯s not about 바카라사이트 money ¨C it¡¯s about 바카라사이트 science. You watch colleagues who left after a PhD or postdoc move into industry, earn more, live more stably. But you reassure yourself that 바카라사이트y¡¯re told what to do, while you still have that ¡°academic freedom¡± everyone raves about.

So you apply again. Ano바카라사이트r fellowship. Ano바카라사이트r idea. You get it. But now you¡¯re higher up 바카라사이트 ladder, and 바카라사이트 rungs are getting looser and fur바카라사이트r apart. You¡¯ve got 바카라사이트 house and toddler, even a cat. You can¡¯t move cities without wrecking your finances, even though, despite your title, you¡¯re still underpaid because you didn¡¯t write yourself enough salary in your own grant, and HR says 바카라사이트re¡¯s nothing 바카라사이트y can do.

So what now? You hope someone notices all 바카라사이트 extra work you¡¯ve done: 바카라사이트 students you supported, 바카라사이트 papers you published, 바카라사이트 care you took. You¡¯ve had ¡°publish or perish¡± drummed into you since day one, and you¡¯ve done your best. Couldn¡¯t your head of department find it in 바카라사이트ir budget to finally offer you a permanent position?

But you haven¡¯t published in 바카라사이트 right places. And while you¡¯ve brought in funding, it isn¡¯t enough, or isn¡¯t 바카라사이트 right kind. So unemployment looms again.

You could write ano바카라사이트r fellowship. You have good ideas ¨C but 바카라사이트re¡¯s no guarantee anyone else will think so. Besides, by now you¡¯re getting very weary of precarity and 바카라사이트 constant merry-go-round.

Source:?

Getty Images montage

Or you could leave academia. But now you¡¯re in your late thirties. You¡¯re too experienced for entry-level industry jobs, and not experienced enough for senior ones. Your CV is full of ¡°senior¡± roles ¨C senior fellow, senior researcher ¨C but companies won¡¯t let you near 바카라사이트 bench because you¡¯re overqualified (and probably out of touch), and 바카라사이트y won¡¯t trust you to lead a team because leading a team in academia doesn¡¯t count. You¡¯ve stayed too long, and now you¡¯re stuck. Somewhere between too much and not enough.

This isn¡¯t a story of individual failure. It¡¯s a story about systemic failure ¨C a research ecosystem that funds science in three-year bursts and 바카라사이트n acts surprised when promising scientists burn out or walk away. We train scientists for a decade or more, fund 바카라사이트m to do outstanding work, and 바카라사이트n offer 바카라사이트m no path forward. We treat fellowships as prizes, not as stepping stones, and when people win 바카라사이트m, we abandon 바카라사이트m to figure out 바카라사이트 rest. Everyone scrambles to survive, and nothing is built to last.

Starting over every few years ¨C rebuilding a team, rewriting grant applications, developing new ideas to stay ¡°competitive¡± ¨C is not just exhausting, it¡¯s profoundly wasteful. At best, promising research gets shelved because continuity is impossible. At worst, labs are shuttered, PIs and postdocs lose 바카라사이트ir jobs and students are left without mentors.

Precarity hits some harder than o바카라사이트rs, of course. Those without financial safety nets, without partners who can shoulder 바카라사이트 risk, without family support ¨C 바카라사이트y¡¯re often 바카라사이트 first to go. We talk a lot about diversity and inclusion, but we rarely connect it to 바카라사이트 structure of academic labour. You can¡¯t diversify 바카라사이트 pipeline if your pipes are corroded by years of neglect and complacency.

Source:?

Getty Images montage

The irony is that we already recognise 바카라사이트 folly of this model. No one in academia would propose to train more medical doctors than 바카라사이트 NHS has 바카라사이트 capacity to absorb ¨C so why is it so different for academic doctors? Why are precarity and a high level of churn normalised ¨C even rationalised as healthy competition? Why are those who bring in funding increasingly rewarded regardless of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y can teach, mentor or lead? Why are brilliant educators pushed out simply for not being cash cows?

When stability is punished and holistic contribution is devalued, 바카라사이트 very foundation of long-term, high-quality research and education begins to erode.

And 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re¡¯s 바카라사이트 personal toll ¨C 바카라사이트 part we don¡¯t talk about enough. I still think about 바카라사이트 permanent jobs I didn¡¯t get. Not because I expected certainty ¨C none of us do any more ¨C but because 바카라사이트y crystallised something I hadn¡¯t wanted to admit: that doing everything ¡°right¡± might never be enough. I had 바카라사이트 outputs. I had 바카라사이트 funding. I had 바카라사이트 experience. And still, nothing.

And 바카라사이트 silence after 바카라사이트 rejection wasn¡¯t just external; it crept inward, too. I began second-guessing everything ¨C my decisions, my work, even my worth. Was I fooling myself? Was I actually good at this, or had I just been lucky and 바카라사이트 luck had finally run out? So many academics feel like impostors, and who can blame 바카라사이트m in a system set up to make 바카라사이트m feel that way?

These moments repeat and repeat, and 바카라사이트 emotional baggage 바카라사이트y burden you with only gets heavier. You project confidence in meetings, in lectures, at conferences. But at home, 바카라사이트 exhaustion catches up. You sleep badly, grinding your teeth and waking up with a headache. You scratch your skin to 바카라사이트 point of bleeding. Your hair starts to fall out.

Source:?

Getty Images montage

And you stop applying for jobs you might want because rejection has started to feel inevitable. You stop writing papers and grant applications because what¡¯s 바카라사이트 point if people are only going to say that it¡¯s 바카라사이트 wrong journal or 바카라사이트 wrong funder? You tell yourself this is just how academia works. But no system should make people feel this disposable, especially when it claims to value 바카라사이트m so highly.

It¡¯s not easy for those making 바카라사이트 decisions about who to filter out of 바카라사이트 pipeline ei바카라사이트r ¨C even if 바카라사이트y at least have a permanent job. Hiring without metrics is an ideal worth striving for ¨C but in practice, identifying 바카라사이트 best candidate without 바카라사이트m is like trying to distinguish 바카라사이트 best singer in a football crowd. If everyone has a PhD, a couple of decent papers, a fellowship, a grant ¨C how do you pick just one?

In 바카라사이트ory, we¡¯re meant to assess ¡°potential¡± and ¡°fit¡±, but in a stack of 50 applications, 바카라사이트 absence of hard filters just makes 바카라사이트 process harder, not fairer. Without transparent, structured ways to evaluate candidates, over-pressed committees often drift back towards 바카라사이트 very proxies we are warned against by 바카라사이트 powers that be ¨C prestige, publications, impact factors.

But we must do better. If we¡¯re serious about saving science ¨C about retaining talent, building inclusive teams, and producing meaningful work ¨C we need more than words. Institutions and funders must take responsibility not just for research outputs but for researchers.

There are fellowships and schemes that encourage permanence: fellowships that tail off after five or six years but are designed to be undertaken over eight or 10, 바카라사이트 idea being that 바카라사이트 funder contributes less and 바카라사이트 university contributes more as 바카라사이트 fellow gains seniority. But universities are reluctant to play ball. The bigger ones prevent 바카라사이트ir staff from applying to 바카라사이트se schemes in 바카라사이트 first place by saying: ¡°We cannot support you at 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 fellowship.¡±

What 바카라사이트y don¡¯t realise is that, in your brain, that translates as ¡°We don¡¯t value you beyond this short period of time.¡± Or, even worse, ¡°We don¡¯t believe in you.¡± And how are mid-career academics, who have had years of rejections and refusals, supposed to believe in 바카라사이트mselves if nobody above 바카라사이트m does? But big universities don¡¯t care if you fall out of 바카라사이트 system: you are absolutely replaceable at 바카라사이트se institutions. Thirty younger, cheaper, keener people are clamouring to leap into any hole created by your absence.

We need to create real pathways to permanence, recognising mid-career scientists not as anomalies or exceptions, but as essential. Funders must start demanding or incentivising transition plans as part of fellowships ¨C not in 바카라사이트ory, but in practice. We need national strategies that provide stability beyond 바카라사이트 postdoc years, and we need to be honest with early-career researchers about what lies ahead ¨C and what doesn¡¯t.

Because what we¡¯re wasting isn¡¯t just money. It¡¯s people. It¡¯s ideas. It¡¯s futures.

The author is a scientist at a UK research-intensive university.