| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
We need three factors in figuring out this problem: How many positions have there been? How many openings have there been? and How many applicants have there been? ================= Here's a few recollections, based chiefly on the American situation: Many new paleo positions were created, it seems to me, in the 1960'-70's in many developing universities that were expanding to accommodate increased enrollments. The established schools kept their paleontologists but did not increase them. A few of these also shifted traditional paleo positions (systematics and biostratigraphy) to new disciplines (geochemistry, environmental geology, etc.) including paleobiology. This is just responding to the new developments in the fields of geology and to lesser extent biology. Whenever there are more jobs available than candidates to take them, we are in an employee shortage. That has not happened in paleontology in general since the oil boom of the late 1970's and, at the same time, when geologists making lots of money appeared in the pages of Time Magazine. Many academic paleontologists (in micropaleo mostly) were recruited out of university positions to oil companies, as were new students, and then were laid off later. This certainly increased the trepidation among paleontologists who followed that boom and bust cycle, and increased the number of paleontologists looking for jobs once again. My sense is that we actually see a very few more jobs advertised for academic positions in the past few years than we did in the more distant past. Partly this may be because we are approaching the retirement times for many of those 60's & 70's hires. In the future, if the economy allows it, an increasing number of students will crush the university system in the US. Most universities had planned for that to start in the past few years and continue for sometime. The Univ. of California, for example, increased enrollment limits on most campuses and planned a new campus. Much of that is on hold. The U Calif this year is turning students away for the first time since 1960 for lack of money. Probably true across the US and maybe the world. The UC is also encouraging faculty to retire, but has not offered sufficient incentives for anyone to take it. And for the first time I can remember it is asking us to go out and get grants. With conditions like this, the closing of departments by "corporate minded" universities is not surprizing at all. When things get better, I'd expect to see those plans renewed and this may provide opportunity for paleontologists, but not in traditional areas most likely. Once a department is gone, however, I'd doubt that it would start up again in the same form. Clearly, we have been producing far more PhD and MA level paleontologists than ever before, simply because we have greater interest in the subject, more universities and colleges that teach it, and more students. One bit of evidence in this regard is that paleontologists generally outnumber any other group at Geol. Soc America meetings. And this is in spite of the fact that many paleontologists rightly call themselves paleoceanographers or paleoclimatologists (paleobiologists are the same as paleontologists, just a different specialization, whereas the others are really focused on different topics that happen to require paleo data) occupy a number of jobs. Where does this leave us? We debate this all the time around Berkeley in terms of what kind of paleontologist should we hire. Although we have a need for systematic knowledge to oversee a huge collection of fossils, we always talk around paleobiologists and evolutionary biologists. But we have to sell these positions to a biology department with strong desires in other directions. I also look at Earth and Planetary Sciences and Astronomy and see a few more opportunities. One thing that can be done is to encourage students and relocating faculty to apply to certain types of non-paleo positions that they are qualified to do and emphasize their training and what an historical perspective might bring to the department. Sell ourselves! One thing you can be certain of, if you don't apply, you won't get the job. ==================== So my list of the kinds of paleontologists who are likely to fill positions where research prominence is important is today as follows: Paleobiology, defined broadly. Evolutionary paleontology or biology based on sound phylogenies using molecular and fossil (systematics! and morphology!) data. Instead of jumping to what the molecular biologists come up with, paleontologists need to be practising molecular biologists themselves, or be very conversant with it, so they can participate in those debates knowledgeably. Biologists seem to be really interested in what the fossil record tells them about evolution and they know that the underlying topology of their molecular phylogenies are important and require fossils. Conservation paleobiology: Conservation biologists are woefully ignorant of the history of the systems they wish to preserve or restore and most seem to think that their systems are static over time. Paleontologists fill an important role in using our techniques to provide the long-term context of the biological system under study and as a way to model what might be coming. That seems essential to me just to tell where on the curve of changing factors the modern system lies. This is beginning to happen in significant ways. Environmental paleobiology: Same thing but focused on the environment. Paleoceanographers and paleoclimatologists using fossils have been doing this for a long time, but we need to break into other environmental issues than global warming. Local environmental paleobiology can contribute enormously to effective policy-making on local issues, such as marsh and lake restoration and many others. The biggest impact environmental papers in Science in the past few years have documented the decline of marine systems over long times and paleontologists were key members of those teams. Numerical paleobiology: Seems to me that we generally seem to lack the rigor of some other disciplines because we have not found numerical analyses particularly useful. That may be true because of the nature of our data, but it does make us look old-fashioned, and we can be a bit more innovative in this area. Teaching areas: History of Life and Earth: This general field is one that is important in teaching situations. I'd expect to see paleontologists employed to teach this topic to freshmen and sophmores either as stand alone classes or in historical geology or beginning biology classes. It already is taught most places. Astrobiology: seems to be absorbing a lot of attention, but it is so subject to the vagaries of politics and failed missions that it may be if-fy for future positions based on it alone. However, astrobiology courses may well become the new high-enrollment courses that satisfy the general science requirement at universities. It is very popular with undergraduates! Mostly it requires a lot of geology (images of other places), and some evolution, origin of life, astronomy, and ecology. Any paleontologist can teach this material at the required level, once it's organized. Functional morphology as an advanced course. Another take off on this one is to use fossil organisms as models for robotics, a field that is extremely well funded (one of our bioguys has $5 million for it) from agencies and private corporations looking to build these things. Weird arthropods would be a place to start, I'd think. Anything that gets around really well without wheels. Phylogenetics using both paleo and molecular data. This should be an expanding course as more and more data from both fields are brought together in consensus trees. Environmental history: like the topic above. Biodiversity, a popular class in many universities, but one that usually fails to ignore fossil diversity and the history of diversity. Oceanography, with an emphasis if necessary on the history of the oceans and life in them. Geomicrobiology usually means the interaction of microbes with the earth, but bacterial paleontology could be an up and coming field. and of course, Global Change. I could go on with some more of this, but you get the idea. You've been doing some of this already quite well, I'd imagine. We need to keep up with the latest stuff and add our expertise to make it even better. Then sell it. ==================== Jere
Partial index: