In article <4s0g5o$ig5 at mserv1.dl.ac.uk>, ds4 at st-andrews.ac.uk says...
>>>Where did that idea ever come up that postdocs are "training" positions.
>Perhaps in times long past they were regarded as such, but, at least in
>the UK, most adverts include phrases like "experience in ... essential"
>few state that "experience in ... advantageous" and precious few that
>"full training will be given". I have reliable sources stating that post-
>doc positions attract hundreds of applicants. Even where training would
>be given, the temptation to take on an experienced postdoc and get those
>papers published quicker surely is too great. So how does a new PhD ever
>get a start in a career?
I have noticed this sort of phrasing in advertisements as well: "the
candidate must have experience in techniques x and y with respect to
system z." However, the post-docs I know personally, in many different
labs, often didn't have much (or in some cases, any) experience in the
techniques they are now using. Perhaps it's different for post-doc
positions that you seek out actively, rather than just responding to an
ad in the back of Science or Nature?
Division of Biology 216-76
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125