Physics Ends the "Free Will" debate

"A man is a sum total of his experiences"...

Recently I came across a video in YouTube, which was shared through my LinkedIn connections. According to Newtonian mechanics, the destiny of a particle is already determined. Einstein, being a deterministic agrees when he said that, " God doesn't play dice". However, Heisenberg comes and introduces the concept of uncertainty. That is there is always an uncertainty associated with the position of the particles. Thus, the video concludes that the destiny of the particles is not predetermined and since it involves certain uncertainty, leads to "Free will".

There are some holes in that argument. First Heisenberg uncertainty principles more specifically says that it is not possible to determine the position and velocity of the particle simultaneously, in which case, he quantifies the error. If we assume that position and velocity together describe the state of a particle, then the argument in the video may seem plausible.

However, now quantum nanostructures exists that restrict the movement of the particles. In such case, although it is not possible to determine the exact state of the particle, there is a definite probability for the particle to exist in within the structure i.e in a boundary. Consider the case of tunneling effect (Tunnel Diode), the electron in the box cannot get over the energy barrier if doesn't have enough energy. However, once it acquires sufficient energy, even though this energy is less than what is required to jump over the energy barrier, it could tunnel through the barrier due to its wave nature. In either case, whether it remains trapped within the box or it exits the box by jumping over the energy barrier or by tunnelling, there exits a definite probability depending upon the energy input and the barrier. In other words, the state i.e. inside or outside the box is determined by its energy. By extension, the one who controls this energy determines the particles destiny. The probability of the particle existing within a nanostructure follows a well defined Gaussian distribution, under some conditions.

So, I argue that though the particle state at any instant of time cannot determined with sufficient accuracy, on an average the state of the particle could be estimated as it is based inputs and the system in which it resides. Similarly, in the case of "Free Will", while it may not be possible to predict a particular thought of an individual at any given instant, the average behaviour (thought process) of the individual or group would converge based on what his inputs were at the time and the system he has been a part of. In other word, the "Free will" is bounded and its average behaviour is predictable and can be influenced (i.e. basically no "Free will") by genetic, economic and environmental factors.

Factors that may determine an individuals destiny

Genetics

Like energy which determines the particle state, genetics is one of the factors that could influence the development and maturity of a person. There are studies that find correlation between school performance and genetic predisposition. This is the case of physical performance also. For example most of the Marathon title were held by the Ethiopians. One of my friends in my Masters class was from Ethiopia and he said that it is not all Ethiopians who have the ability but only people coming from a particular tribe. This tribe happen to be a hunter-gatherer group for a very long time and have evolved to have the endurance required to survive in their environment. So, isn't that destiny of the individual determined, in a broad sense? Of course, he is still free to choose what he does, but his genetics only permits certain things...!

Economy

It is another factor, that influence the development and thought process of an individual. The development of the "free will" itself seem to be interlinked with economy or the families income. A study in UK, apparently showed that the children from poorer families tend to have some parts of their brain smaller than other kids, which affect their performance in their school. So, being born in poor family, already determines the level of academic achievement the child could achieve. Irrespective of whether he wants to or not. In other words, his destiny in a broad sense is determined. The only "free will" he/she then has is how to act in such a way to reduce disadvantage... even for that he is at a disadvantage... because it is the brain that makes this reasoning.

Environment

In the first two factors, I discussed the natural elements that affect the development. The third is environment. A child born to a poor family in a locality is more likely to involve in criminal activity (deduced based on bayesian inference), if the last two factors are true. Even if the child has reasonable intelligence and school performance, he or she could never realize his true potential if the environment is not right. As a personal case, during my 9th grade, I developed a fully herbal mosquito repeller. It was tested in the Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC) in our home town, thanks to one of my teachers who trusted me. However, everyone my parents, my school and even the scientist at the VCRC only discouraged me from further developing the product (Once I get a job one of my first work would be to fully develop that). This is an exact example of how environment could prevent one from realizing his/her full potential. The only "Free will" I had/have is to determine if I want to continue my fight or kill myself.

What if there is complete "Free Will"

Complete free will would be akin to having zero mean white noise. In such a case, there would be no behaviour patterns that companies could use to sell their products, predicting election outcomes won't work, banking will become cumbersome, economy will crash, etc.

Anyone who have visited Amazon would know that Amazon suggests items based on the items that you are checking. The system that does that is called a recommender system, a piece of machine learning software. Consider that there is no pattern, then the systems results would make no sense... every item would have equal probability.

Similarly, based on public sentiments, there are many studies in the world that try predict election outcomes. Isn't it how the Tories utilized the public opinion to come to power in Canada or Mr. Modi in India. If the public opinion is totally random, then it is highly likely that the results would be inconclusive.

Banking and Economy (stock prices) would also suffer. Bloomberg has a team of experts in analyzing sentiments from different source to predict stock prices. What if the opinions are random?
Similarly, if the Banks could not predict the user behaviour they could not invest and the banking will collapse.

And no boutiques for girls would stack up only pink...:)

There would be no racism, stereotypes, xenophobia, etc.

To conclude, "Free will" is bounded by the system in which it exists... Breaking the system is not always possible, as was found by Galileo, Edward Snowden and the like...!

Top 5 reasons why Graduate Studies are (actually) encouraged

In my last post, I was discussing why a bachelor-degree drop-out may have a better chance at earning more money than a graduate with doctorate. Now, I share my top 5 reasons on why, irrespective of the grim picture for the graduates, is graduate studies encouraged:

1. To compete with other countries

Countries are constantly competing with one another. China, a once developing third world country is now aspiring to excel US in economic and military might. It would have never been possible without the strides in science and technology. Even in India, which was once dependent on farm produce is increasingly dependent on IT services for its GDP. The significance of science and technology and consequently graduate education could not have been well said than Mr. Bill Gates himself. So, in short, higher studies fuel economy and country's might, without which the status and prominence of the country itself would be lost. This one of the reasons, why every country is trying to promote education, particularly higher education. And a very noble one. However, what is there for an individual? While some may argue that while the country grows individual grows it cannot be the case for everyone. As when the country grows, increase in inflation would offset the increase in income. Second, corruption and nepotism grows, making it difficult for people without money or influence.

2. To generate cheap labor for research

Don't get me wrong, but research is costly. Getting qualified individuals for the job is much more. The funding usually provided for research in the universities are highly insufficient to hire contract or consulting scientists. So, most of the Universities and laboratories tries to get things done by exploiting young graduates who have energy and are ready to work without any benefits, in the hope of landing a good position someday. From my experience, I cannot blame the scientists. They are very helpful. Sometime, might go out of their way to get you a position. However, they can only do so much when  the funding cuts limits the number of academic and research recruitment (think about superdocs and junior scientists). But what is disturbing is that none would ever say that by pursuing PhD you are going to put your economic future at risk! I definitely don't know if those scientists hope things would get better, or colluding with their political bosses, or forced not to sensitize the next graduate or outright selfish... In any case, the final sufferer is the graduate. 

3. To exploit workforce

Mr. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet were trying to promote STEM education. However, it seems his own company is not inclined to even give a chance to STEM graduates (postdocs) other than from Ivy league universities. Personally, when I doing my undergraduate degree in engineering Microsoft wouldn't even set their foot on our university irrespective of the fact that Tata, Cognizant and a whole lot holds our university in good esteem. Trying to prove myself, was one of my motivations to pursue higher studies. Anyway, that is a different story. However, their constant promotion is only likely increase the workforce supply, which would naturally lead to the exploitation of workforce. For example, many IT companies in India force their employees to work over 16 hrs without weekends and holidays. I was once penalized, as not being time inflexible, for completing my work before 18h00. The employees have no say because, they are easily replaceable with someone with a need. In the case of recession, some companies laid off their employees but they had no reason to, most of their projects are long-term and most of them saw hike in their profits, generated by these lay-offs. They could do so due to the huge supply of workforce...

In my perspective, Mr. Gates, is either trying to generate cheap labor for his industry or is completely misinformed of the reality.

4. To attain social status

This is a very common reason for parents motivating their children to become graduates and is more common when they are from socially/economically backward community. I believe, this is their subconscious drive to prove that they are equal. While education does bring some social status, the ultimate status is determined only by one's paycheck... Even if the person is a noble laureate, he gets his insurance coverage only based on his premium and net worth, not on his contribution...!

5. To attain economic status

Many believe that higher education would lead to better income. There is some truth in that but also a lot of lies. As have indicated in my previous post, an undergraduate is likely to derive more benefits. This could be justified by the plethora of job opportunities available to them and low debt accumulated during those undergraduate studies. Further, since they start early, they are likely to accumulate more over the years. However, the situation would change immediately once you venture beyond your undergraduate degree. With Masters, the opportunity reduces, reduces further with PhD and proceeds towards zeros as the number of years in one's postdoc increases. Take my case for example, I left a nice job to do graduate studies in robotics. Yes, it is a very good subject with lot of civilian and military applications. The consequence, I'm now desperately hunting for a job after a PhD in remote sensing and 2 years of experience as a postdoc as my funding would run out in another 6 months. 

Conclusion

Now comes the interesting question, irrespective of the risks involved, how and why is that many of the articles continue to sing paeans encouraging graduate education? First, these studies project amazing life-time earnings based on past earners, who now have comfortable in jobs and have a decade or more years to retire. Those studies didn't take into account the present job market and its evolution over time to predict its future state. They conveniently left out the truth about the risks involved and were also "unethical" in failing to highlight the limits of their analyzes. Regarding why they do this, it may probably be to reduce competition. For example, if every one knows the truth about graduate education, they would try to emulate people in power i.e., businessmen and politicians, which would increasingly make the market competitive. Since, it is impossible to derive economic benefits from a perfectly competitive market, the best alternative for those in power is to make the people believe in a system of long-duration education. This would reduce the competition immediately and would also shift the unemployment crisis to a later date. 

Limitations:

This analysis is based on an average perspective. Ivy leaguers and "close-enough"s get preferential treatments, so they may not agree with this. And obviously certain subjects would be better preferred than other. These aspects are not discussed in this study.

Do you have any personal experience that buttress or counter the arguments in this post?
I would more than happy to hear from people with different views...!

Should I study more?!

 a bachelor degree drop-out is likely to make more money

I was a brat, who wanted to become a scientist . Period! I want to become a scientist! However, my parents had a different plan for me - finish engineering, join IT!

After 3 years of toil in IT, I finally accumulated enough money to take TOEFL and GRE and finally landed on a prestigious European scholarship to pursue Masters in Computer Vision and Robotics. But all the time, my father was insisting, "the money you might earn through higher studies could be obtained through experience"... Blinded by my love for science, ambition and to prove my self, I resigned my job and joined my Masters. Four years after my Masters, I finally got my PhD.... Yahoo!!! It was from a prestigious lab, under a great remote sensing scientist... I was all but proud. All my lonely and boring days doesn't matter anymore. Like most other doctorates, in my quest to become a scientist, I became a Postdoc. The current project is amazing and my supervisor, is really great! I'm learning a lot... In the mean time, I became a father... Then the reality struck me hard in the face... POSTDOC CRISIS! My funding is running out, my PhD is not for 3 years as initially envisaged but only 2... My visa is running out! And I don't have a job... yet!

What the hell did I do? Am I blame myself for not seeing this coming? Then I read articles in the internet, where Mr. Bill Gates was promoting STEM education. Not only Gates but many other blogs were also showing that graduate education is worth the investment. Ok, then why is the crisis... Then why is it difficult for Postdocs (Curiously NSERC fellows were treated as immigrant workers and not postdocs while immigrants in Universities were considered as postdocs, in Canada...?!)? So, I have been wondering... Finally I thought,  OK, since the cost of education is usually considered an investment, may be there is an ideal numbers of years of study that could return well on the investment, at the least the investment itself. So, I set to discover this optimal point i.e the number of years that breaks-even on the investment.

1-http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
2-http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-published-undergraduate-charges-sector-2014-15, http://www.bestmastersdegrees.com/how-much-does-a-masters-degree-cost, http://study.com/articles/How_Much_Does_a_Doctorate_Degree_Cost.html
3-https://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/bank-cds/standard-term-certificate-of-deposit.go

The figure, above shows how the income, the total cost of education, and the opportunity cost of education of a student increases with the number of years of study. From the figure, it could be seen that at little over 2 years of study after High school (year 0), the opportunity cost breaks-even with the income. And, around 3 years of study after Higher school, the actual cost breaks-even with the income to be earned. So, in other words, in the current labor market a bachelor degree drop-out is likely to make more money than a guy who was working his ass-off towards his PhD. Worse, the PhDs have limited opportunities than an undergraduate.

A case in point, is a lesson I learnt too late. I had a classmate during my high school days, whose grade used to be so bad, that he had to leave the school after his 10th Grade to some other schools to continue his education. Of course, our school used to eliminate students with poor standing every year. However, when I was doing my bachelors degree in Engineering, I saw him doing some bachelors degree in the University, which was not one of the STEM subjects, everyone longs for. In 2013, when I came across him after a PhD with no property or riches, he was already a multi-millionaire having grown his family business to great extent. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., where all university dropout and yet they are all billionaires. Others...?!

For wondering about the earlier studies that champion longer study periods, it should be noted that those studies don't usually include long-term risk factors. Further, those studies on life-term earnings are based on past observations which may not hold good for present or future. For example, 20 years back a PhD could easily get a job and his earning would accrue with benefits. Could we say that now?

In short, I'm not advocating against education but it might probably be best if someone don't pursue higher studies, particularly if they are not from some Ivy League Universities...! It might even be better, if one pursues his studies for growing his/her venture, as my friend did on his family business.

Personal point: The studies, paint a grim picture. I some time feel remorseful for leaving a good job, the company I enjoyed and for not listening to my father. However, had I not pursued my graduate studies, probably I would have never acquired these skills of analyzes and reasoning. So, they are worth it...and more! 

How did I do it?

For those curious to know, how arrived at the results:

• For this study, completion of High School is fixed as reference i.e., year 0. After which, the student may either pursue a 2-year Associate degree or a 4-year bachelors degree. 2 more years are required for a masters degree and an average of 5 more years is assumed for obtaining PhD. 
• The actual cost, is the actual amount that is spent to attain a specific degree. For example, for obtaining a Masters degree, is the sum of the cost of obtaining a bachelors degree and the cost during Masters. 
• The opportunity cost, is the cost of a missed opportunity to invest. I took the example of investing in a certificate of deposit account in US, with an annual percentage yield of about 0.1%. One of the reasons to choose this investment is the low risk of investment. 
• Similarly, information on median income was obtained from the Bureau of Labor statistics
• These cumulated values were plotted to identify the break-even point. 

Limitations:

In many ways, the study is an approximation:

• This study didn't use the long-term rate of return calculations because such calculation would have to include the risk due socio-politico-economic factors. I would love to include that analyses but if I'm to try and include those factors of benefit and risk then this post would be about 30 pages long, which would enervate even the most energetic person. 
• This study also didn't include, social-factors - like the status accorded to a person due to his education, which could be kept for another study. 
• Many of these values are approximate and obtained from internet sources. Obviously, the results would be different with other data, nevertheless, the approach could be defended.
• Also, it should be understood that learning some subjects is worth than other. For example, becoming a graduate in Computer Science or Law may be worth more than a graduation in Earth Sciences or Education.
• These data were obtained from internet sources (mostly google searches)

However, did you ever wonder why, irrespective of the grim picture about higher studies, why people are encouraging it? Wait for my next post...!
And share your thoughts...!

Why are people poor?

Poverty is a problem all over the world. Since recession the rich-poor gap has only widened. In this article, I share some of my observations and thoughts on why some stay poor. 

1. They are lazy: Some may take offence on this but if the truth be told, it is the poor who spend more time with their TV's (or any entertainment) than the rich (who delve more on self-improvement, management, etc.). For example, the grumpy cat pic (the owner became a millionaire what about those who got entertained?). How many times have you come across someone sharing items that makes or motivates someone to think/think differently? Further, if you give an idea to make money to a middle class or poor, he/she would immediately produce a deluge of ideas off-his-hat of why your idea won't work and why he/she would never do it (I'm sure many have many pics like Grumpy Cat pic but none even tried to think of something to use them). On the other hand, if you give that idea to a rich he/she would immediately try to analyze the potential of the idea and try to think of how he could make it work. While some may attribute this attitude of the poor to their disinclination to risk taking, I would only attribute it to their laziness to put even the smallest of effort to think it through.
2. They tend to blame everyone else but themselves: The first step to improvement is to acknowledge one's mistake. For example, many wouldn't know that Walt Disney was twice bankrupt before his current successful venture. Hollywood actor Will Smith went nearly broke in 1990 but now is considered among the money-wise. History is replete with people who have outgrown their initial failures. If you ask them why they failed the first time they'd tell you what they did wrong, how they should have done it and possibly why they were successful now. On the other hand, go to a poor and ask the reason for his plight, he/she would immediately blame everyone else (parents, teachers, politicians, economy, poverty, etc.) except themselves.  Personally, my parents never wanted me to do my Masters or PhD. I wanted to pursue higher studies, and I hid all my efforts through my elaborate schemes saving every penny that I could. They were taken off-guard when I went to them with my admission to my Masters. Hence, in my perspective, self-improvement could only begin with self-realization! So, not acknowledging one's own mistake or giving excuses for their lack of action is never going to help anyone.
3. They believe in everyone: The poor trusts everyone, astrologers, politicians, priests, etc, with no questions asked. On the other hand, rich tries to make use of these elements to their advantage. For example, royalties are portrayed by various religious entities throughout history as descendants of Gods or adorned by them to rule common men. Many people believe that and tend to live their life in poverty. While the rich(royalty), would use those religious elements to make the common men endorse their dominion and strengthen their power. Nazis were very adept at spreading rumours to win people's mind, the theory is now widely known as the "Goebbel's law". Now, this is one of the pillars of Psy-warfare (Chinese have a large number of people working on this). Even now, Mr. Modi's Govt. is trying to crack-down NGOs that are trying to protect environment. GoI's (Govt. of India) contention is that these NGOs are funded by foreign elements to prevent development in India. However, if those Nuclear plants come to existence, aren't these the foreign countries which are benefitting from it? Why none asked Mr. Modi's Govt., this question? However, Mr. Modi has no problem in NGOs working to destroy Indian culture or spread Western propaganda (Ex. The Hindu*). In either case, people believed the GoI and didn't even care to question the logic. In this context, I'm only remembered of the great sayings of Thiruvalluvar (sage poet who lived more than 2000 years ago), when I think about their state!
4. They follow the crowd: One of the most deplorable things among the poor is their tendency to follow the crowd. Aren't there any better options, no poor or middle class care to look or hardly do. On the other hand, rich tend to constantly look out for new opportunities. Steve Jobs, learnt calligraphy, which eventually motivated him invent the first Apple Computers. Hardly, a middle class or poor, tend to make the connection between calligraphy and computers. Basically, they do things because everyone does them. When we had our baby, some of our acquaintances/friends (Canada and its Govt. as such is promoting breast-feeding in a great way...) were "advising" us to use baby-formula instead mother's milk. I was both astounded and disappointed. Their reason, every other person they knew of used that brand of formula-milk. None, cared to look or analyze the benefits of one over  the other. 
5. Under or Over educated: Most of the poor either are less educated or overeducated. American Bureau of Labor statistics makes a direct connection between the level of education and the amount of money earned. Though this is an average, less education could be considered a cause for low income. However, what is not very apparent is, too much education also tends to make one poor. Statistics paint a grim picture of the student debt of graduates, every year. Consider also the plight of postdocs who have great ideas but not much opportunities. In Australia, one postdoc seemed to have worked as a forklift, before getting into some position. On the other hand, rich start to earn early. While education is in their interest, they would rather spend more time in learning their business and developing it. 
6. They are cowards: The poor are less inclined to take risk or to stand out from the crowd. Even when their property is acquired by their Govt.,  or forcefully abducted by some "mafia" the poor hardly put a brave fight, even when they might have an advantage of winning the fight. For example, take the case of Target which recently failed in Canada. The CEO went home with more money than the severance package of all the other Target employees' put together. Even though the leadership is responsible for the failure, it is employees who ended up paying the price. Yet, there has been no noticeable protest or anger about it. This is irrespective of the fact that Canada is in election mode now and no politician would risk antagonizing their electorate. 
7. They are not born rich: Being born to rich couple has its advantage. A recent study found the  richer twin to have better mental faculties than the poorer twin. Further, even when a poor has some idea, it is the rich who have the money to implement that and they usually hire the poor for their ideas. However, the good news is that around 50% of the new-billionaires are self-made (Ex. Sergey Brin).
8. Lack of sacrifice: Every achievement requires sacrifice (No pain, no gain). Many rich, would have almost sacrificed their entire youth to get to the point they are now. They would have traded their "popularity" in their schools for their current position even be ridiculed and bullied. Many wouldn't even have had an opportunity to have date, while working like a nerd (many are). While, I wonder how many of the poor had ever sacrificed their want for an ice-cream or the dinner to save that one buck for investing?!
9. Selflessness: One of the interesting things about rich, is that they are mean and tend to stretch every bit of their dollar. Warren Buffett, though is one among the top 10 billionaires consistently, who is well-known for his frugality.  However, he is not the only one. Think about the poor, they are usually over spending and more generous than these billionaires.

Please don't forget to share with us your thoughts on why you think poor are poor...

* It is my observation that 'The Hindu' publish mostly Western propaganda, when it comes to socio-economic issues and hardly prints a rational comment opposing that view. Please refer to my earlier post, for example.

Future of Postdocs: Impediments and possible solutions

I’m currently a postdoc and have been hunting for jobs since my funding is run out by the November of this year. Recently, I came across an article in Nature 1 which was investigating the plight of postdocs and some of the suggestions in the anvil, which was forwarded through my ‘Young Scientist’ mailing list. However, I thought present my thoughts on this problem, from a postdocs perspective.

Problems and Causes    

While, I cannot comment on the whole Postdoc population, as the experiences changes from person to person, institution to institution and from subject to subject, the following are some of the causes I have observed as problems facing a postdoc to land a career:

Government Regulations:

I’m now under a work permit which restricts my employment to my lab.  As such, I couldn't teach or even provide tutoring services. In this context, I recently attended two interviews with Indian institutions and in both the cases my lack of teaching experience is what stood out. The head of the department of one of the universities was hostile even before I presented myself. Her only contention is that I don't have teaching experience. I’m not sure,however, if it is absolutely necessary, as I have a friend who is now an Assistant Professor in one other IITs with a postdoc in France and with no teaching experience. But she was alumni of an IIT unlike me who was in Europe for my Masters as well. With PITS, they are only interested to know, if I can teach or not. That's their only question and the entire interview was for 5 minutes. They had no interest in my research or its significance. However, the inability to pursue teaching seems to limit the number of jobs for which I'm eligible.

Further, as postdoc opportunities are LMO (Labour Market Opinion) exempted, not many companies are interested in sponsoring visa for postdocs.

Student or Employee:

This is a question that many postdocs have but many articles highlights the dilemma only when it comes to salary and benefits and not in job-hunting. Put it simply, as a postdoc, should I apply as fresh graduate or an experienced employee? How are the companies considering the postdocs’ candidature, as a fresh talent or otherwise? No clarification is available till date, in this regard.

Lack of opportunities:

1. Lack of assured funding: In most cases, funding is ad-hoc. Without assured tenure, a postdoc is in a continuous state of job-hunting, which saps his zeal for science and make his/her productivity suffer.
2. Lack of learning opportunities: I have been processing time series data throughout my PhD and postdoc but mostly using MATLAB. However, industries who have similar jobs expect Java, Hadoop and similar hot tools. Unfortunately, this is not easy as our access rights are limited on the software we could install. As a mac user, I cannot afford another computer for just learning these skills as I also have to provide for my family.
3. Lack of academic positions: In Postdoc manufacturing countries like US, this is a problem but in countries like India the problem is nepotism and racism or whatever.
4. Difficulty in creating start-ups: Start-ups require a team and for most NSERCs, confined to their cubicle, it is difficult to get a team to work for a start-up and then come the problem of visa.

Evaluations/Recommendations:

In almost all of the cases, the next opportunity of the postdoc is determined by a set of factors: reputation of the supervisor, reputation of the institution, recommendations of the supervisor and the work of the postdocs. When the article was suggesting “super-star” postdocs, it made me flinch as it is a purely subjective term. Anything from the style of writing to cultural differences may set a postdoc’s supervisor off, and in some cases the postdocs are made just a scapegoat. So to be a “super-star” postdoc, scientific acumen and hard-work are not enough!

Proposed Solutions are inadequate

Upper limit for postdocs

One of the arguments in favor of imposing the upper limit on the duration of a postdoc is that they would enter the stream to find a job and move out. While the intention is good, the practice is made difficult due to many factors:

1. Its roulette not science anymore: As I had mentioned previously, the career prospect for a postdoc is highly dependent on the reputations and recommendations of his supervisors, the reputation of his lab and himself. While landing in such “super-platforms” itself is dictated many similar factors. Hence, by this limit, many postdoc would be devoid of opportunity to reinvent and prove themselves. For example, it is extremely difficult for a PhD from a small university in France to land a postdoc position at MIT or Stanford. He can either slowly move upstream or should roll-over and die, if this system is to be fully implemented.
2. The suggestion also did not address the question of postdocs who had already exceeded the said limit with no permanent career options

The Elite Postdoc

                This suggestion was to limit the number of PhDs entering the postdoctoral stream. While it is appealing, it fails to answer the future of the PhDs. University PhDs of industry-favorite subjects like computer engineering would have little trouble, PhDs from research laboratories with little connection to the university, like the author himself, are the ones likely to suffer from this proposal. Further, it is not easy for non-natives to find job in France and many other countries due to governmental regulations, culture differences, language, xenophobia, etc. When I was in France, I attended training in the University for PhDs to help them in job-search where the instructor told me that a resume with a French name on it is 7 times more likely to get an interview call.

The ‘Superdoc’

                This is funniest of all the suggestions. The suggestion is to provide better salary and benefits. First, this would only change the title and would have not real change in reality. Second, it is already being practiced without much help to the postdocs.  It is just a temporary solution, which is difficult to implement in many cases due to lack of funding and would effectively be reduced to the first suggestion.

Conclusions

From the article, I believe the solutions proposed are nothing but political gimmicks to transfer the blame from the policy maker to the postdocs. In contrast to the above solutions, I suggest the following:

1. Instead of restricting the PhDs and postdocs at the fair end, restrict the students who move from one grade to another. It is an old Indian system, every year 10% of the students are made to sit in the same grade and only the rest are promoted to the next grade. During 10th and 12th grade, the filtering is severe where only 50% of the students move forward.
2. Instead of encouraging students to pursue science, they should be encouraged to pursue subjects that are likely to benefit their future. Of course it is difficult to make such predictions, as the opportunities are a result of a complex combination of factors ranging from political to socio-economic factors.
3. Postdocs are not idiots. They learn new techniques and tools every day. They could easily acquire the skillsets required to succeed in their job with little training. Companies like Tata Consultancy Services and Cognizant Technology solutions had excellent training programs (I don’t know if they have now) for undergraduates. However, I don’t understand the reason they don’t want to train the postdocs for their companies. In US and Canada, I increasingly seen companies looking for specific talents and able to jump to work with no efforts. Ex: Amazon. I’m not sure if Microsoft and Google have any training program. However, if these companies are encouraged to absorb postdocs, the problem could easily be moderated.
4. Governmental regulations, which are mostly political gimmicks, are the biggest of the problems. Be in Maharashtra, India where MNS demands people from other regions to leave Maharashtra or in Canada where Tories blame “brownies” stealing Canadian Jobs. Further, the “licence raj” in Canada is another major impediment.
5. Socio-economic factors such as racism, xenophobia, and nepotism further aggravates the problem.

Hence, my humble opinion is that instead of proposing “shallow” solutions and being hypocrites, all parties concerned should try to stem the source of the problem and not port the problem from one shoulder to another.

References

1              Powell, K. THE FUTURE OF THE POSTDOC. Nature 520, 144 - 147 (2015).