I disagree with certain points: I think the research misconduct arises mostly from the tournament model.and the mismatch between current PhD production and current opportunities. It is like a hungry person stealing bread. Not starving, but certainly hungry and pressured. I also think this is the biggest problem in science today.
I don't think recognition solves the problem. I think matching the amount of time put into the career with the salary and value is what is needed. Lecturers with PhDs are overtrained for their positions, and even worse there is an oversupply of PhDs in science. Hence, we end up with low salaries for Lecturers relative to their qualifications.
It is a supply and demand issue. Saying "good job, here is an award" won't make their student debt go away (if they have that) or give them as much savings as someone who choose a more supply and demand matched career. Maybe higher salary for them is part of what you are advocating for, something similar to the concept.of a minimum wage rather than market based salaries, but that would not solve the supply and demand issue.
I do think there was good in the post, I focus on the places of disagreement (or my disagreement with my interpretation of part of what you meant) with the intent of being constructive.
I'm not sure which report you mean, I have now gone and skimmed over the below report [Ref 1] (very quickly, few minutes) and saw salary mentioned once. However, I do not agree with the solution of raising pay. I would advocate for lowering the qualifications necessary. Many University courses could be taught by a person with a bachelor's degree, and then the pay could be commensurate for a person with a bachelor's degree. Simply having a more widespread awareness of job prospects for science degrees prior to (and at the start of) bachelor's degrees would also help with the supply and demand issues that lead to the current situation. Assuredly, if noone was willing to do it at the current salary, then universities would raise the salaries. To me, it is obviously an oversupply (as well as overtrained instructors) situation. Sortof like when medical doctors are giving injections that someone with lesser training could provide.
I disagree with certain points: I think the research misconduct arises mostly from the tournament model.and the mismatch between current PhD production and current opportunities. It is like a hungry person stealing bread. Not starving, but certainly hungry and pressured. I also think this is the biggest problem in science today.
I don't think recognition solves the problem. I think matching the amount of time put into the career with the salary and value is what is needed. Lecturers with PhDs are overtrained for their positions, and even worse there is an oversupply of PhDs in science. Hence, we end up with low salaries for Lecturers relative to their qualifications.
It is a supply and demand issue. Saying "good job, here is an award" won't make their student debt go away (if they have that) or give them as much savings as someone who choose a more supply and demand matched career. Maybe higher salary for them is part of what you are advocating for, something similar to the concept.of a minimum wage rather than market based salaries, but that would not solve the supply and demand issue.
I do think there was good in the post, I focus on the places of disagreement (or my disagreement with my interpretation of part of what you meant) with the intent of being constructive.
I was certainly arguing for higher salaries. That's in the report if you have time to read the whole thing. Thanks for your comment.
I'm not sure which report you mean, I have now gone and skimmed over the below report [Ref 1] (very quickly, few minutes) and saw salary mentioned once. However, I do not agree with the solution of raising pay. I would advocate for lowering the qualifications necessary. Many University courses could be taught by a person with a bachelor's degree, and then the pay could be commensurate for a person with a bachelor's degree. Simply having a more widespread awareness of job prospects for science degrees prior to (and at the start of) bachelor's degrees would also help with the supply and demand issues that lead to the current situation. Assuredly, if noone was willing to do it at the current salary, then universities would raise the salaries. To me, it is obviously an oversupply (as well as overtrained instructors) situation. Sortof like when medical doctors are giving injections that someone with lesser training could provide.
[ref 1] https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/25685/chapter/1