Where many PhD books focus solely on guiding the overwhelmed student to the thesis, Peter J. Fiebelman in ‘A PhD Is Not Enough!: A Guide to Survival in Science’ begins from the assumption that the reader is more than capable of independently completing a high-quality PhD. Instead, his book focuses on the intelligent, hard working, and creative students that completed compelling theses and, still, nevertheless, in some way or another, failed out of academia. I give it half marks as while there was nothing precisely to be faulted with it nor was there anything to be particularly praised, and I thought more could have been done with the concept for the same page count. That being said, there were some ideas that, once having been exposed to, form an inconspicuous but core part of my understanding of the world and I suspect that my thoughts will be clearer and decisions better as a result of having read it. This is a very short review, as I was mostly neutral, and therefore haven’t much to say about it.

The book begins with a series of true case studies of late-stage PhD students and postdocs at a decision point where the decision they made, or the situation they were in, fell out disfavorably for them. For example, a very bright student complained too much and was let go as “management’s distaste for F’s complaining far exceeded its pleasure at his scientific achievements” (14). Or an ambitious student is partnered with an ambitious supervisor and the two of them compete over who gets the credit and the junior is shunted out of the picture (35). Feibelman’s central thesis is stated in the title — that they were good researchers, that they had a PhD, was not enough to get them into a career in academia. Maybe when Fiebelman published (1993) this was a novel idea but it hardly is now. Now, a PhD is never considered a ticket into academia, it’s just the right to stand in the queue. Publications, grants, volunteering, media opportunities, networking, conference prizes, and cold-call contact are what get you to the next step - or so I have heard.

A lot of what stuck with me was Fiebelman’s discussions of postdoc positions, and how to pragmatically and clinically optimise for the right one. For the many PhD students like myself not quite sure what a postdoc even is (research after PhD, but unclear on the range of what that could entail) it is a useful place to start. Whether rightly or wrongly, Feibelman presents a concise theory that postdocs are a breathless scramble up a vertical incline grasping for funding and prestige while somehow finding time to get the assigned job done.

Acquiring a postdoc [from the perspective of the PI], in short, is much like buying a piece of laboratory equipment. (33)

You have three important tasks in your post-doctoral years: You must decide in what field of science to make your name. You must finish at least one significant project. And, you must establish your identity in the research community sufficiently to land an assistant professorship or junior position in an industrial or government laboratory. (34)

He peppers in tips for how to make that ascent. These are the kind of pragmatic tips that, while far from inspiring, help one make good decisions.

You don’t want an undefined or overly complex postdoc, you want something that you can get done to a high standard. (34)

As a postdoc under time pressure, you may have to sacrifice your desire for perfection, you may have to live with the fear you haven’t got everything right, in order to develop a story you can use to sell yourself. (36)

The remainder of the book is about what alternatives lay at the end of the road as, one by one, previously bright-eyed PhD students leave academia. This formed my first exposure to the benefits of industrial labs and the claim of how much further and faster and unencumbered by bureaucracy one can climb outside of the confines of academia. In industry, by Feibelman’s measure, funding will be provided by the C-suite, materials will be sourced by the techs, staffing by HR, and project managing by management, leaving the researcher free to undertake research as their only KPI.

My criticism is that I don’t know to what degree Feibelman is right about all this. Doesn’t this differ vastly between countries / universities / industries / individuals? The core advice for those wanting to stay in academia (do good work, don’t complain) hardly seems more relevant to academia than any other career where it could similarly generically be implemented, and the central thesis that industry labs imbue more freedom seems extremely unlikely to me. Unless one is completely flush with funding, there will be investors to impress, contracts to win, and the ever present possibility that C-suite might change their mind. These limitations are all addressed within-text, but I don’t believe well enough.

Compared to the many years I have spent in the university system, my brief experience in industry (a mid-sized consultancy) wasn’t long or varied enough for me to draw many conclusions from. The main observation I made was that the higher one rose in the professional hierarchy, the more freedom and autonomy they had. While those above me had calendars objectively more full with meetings and budget reporting, on a meta-level they influenced the direction and goals of the projects and clients they self-selected to work on/with, allowing a deeper sense of connection with the work. While I did not enjoy being a graduate student where I had to do what I was told even when the task was demonstrably nonsensical or inefficient, I could appreciate that the seniors in my team (although most certainly overworked) were having a better time of it than I was. In industry, autonomy scaled with the pay-structure and had to be ‘earned’ through time and proven competence. In academia, however, I have experienced something quite different: even when you are very low on the hierarchy, you are granted near full autonomy. In my — again, very narrow and very privileged and lucky —- experience, PhD students like myself, despite having as yet earned nothing, experience nevertheless an unmatched liberty. Maybe there are some labs where you are told what to do and where to be and when and how, but for me, in my lab, I choose my own projects, deadlines, work schedules, questions, and collaborators… As do all those I work with. The respect, autonomy, and influence that it may have taken me 5 or more years to climb up towards in my previous consulting job is granted as a fundemental right in academia.

The quote that stuck with me most from this whole book encourages exactly this part of academia.

Many a graduate student or postdoc spends time trying to understand what his advisor wants and getting it done. In fact, it is the young scientists who define and carry out what they want, who learn to be scientific leaders. (9)

So while I am only half-way through my PhD and there is an unknown (but surely very massive) number of unknowns ahead of me, Fiebelman has given me something to think over… and maybe less to worry about. I love thinking and problem solving and planning my own research. While my life as a PhD student perfectly aligns with these career values, I am glad to hear that there are many places, in industry, start-up, government, and beyond, where I could continue this kind of work.