We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
2 added 358 characters in body
source | link

This article argues that the portion of federal funding is decreasing more and more in the US while funding by corporate and philantropical sources is increasing within the last decade.

enter image description here

I'm wondering if this shift/drift, which looks quite significant in the chart to me, means a much worse likelihood of success for postdocs trying to acquire funding, due to the fact that most postdocs have no reputation/infrastructure (offices, labs, staff,...) and are unlikely to be chosen/visible by/to corporate/philantropical sources.

Is the situation as I imagine it myself or did maybe postdocs never had high likelihood of federal funding in the US (which would be very different to europe) and the competition is not increasing drastically with less federal funding. I would like to see some numbers/statistics, no common sense/experience arguing. I hope there are maybe also statistics how much funding assistant, associate, full professors acquire and how this has changed over time.

EDIT: Independently from the discussion in the comments about postdoc/assistant professor definition, to me the answer/insight is if the drift from federal to corporate/philantropical funding is siginificantly reducing the chances of PhD's, assistant professors to acquire funding and most of the non-federal funding goes to universities/full professors? Any statistics/experience would be interesting here to me.

This article argues that the portion of federal funding is decreasing more and more in the US while funding by corporate and philantropical sources is increasing within the last decade.

enter image description here

I'm wondering if this shift/drift, which looks quite significant in the chart to me, means a much worse likelihood of success for postdocs trying to acquire funding, due to the fact that most postdocs have no reputation/infrastructure (offices, labs, staff,...) and are unlikely to be chosen/visible by/to corporate/philantropical sources.

Is the situation as I imagine it myself or did maybe postdocs never had high likelihood of federal funding in the US (which would be very different to europe) and the competition is not increasing drastically with less federal funding. I would like to see some numbers/statistics, no common sense/experience arguing. I hope there are maybe also statistics how much funding assistant, associate, full professors acquire and how this has changed over time.

This article argues that the portion of federal funding is decreasing more and more in the US while funding by corporate and philantropical sources is increasing within the last decade.

enter image description here

I'm wondering if this shift/drift, which looks quite significant in the chart to me, means a much worse likelihood of success for postdocs trying to acquire funding, due to the fact that most postdocs have no reputation/infrastructure (offices, labs, staff,...) and are unlikely to be chosen/visible by/to corporate/philantropical sources.

Is the situation as I imagine it myself or did maybe postdocs never had high likelihood of federal funding in the US (which would be very different to europe) and the competition is not increasing drastically with less federal funding. I would like to see some numbers/statistics, no common sense/experience arguing. I hope there are maybe also statistics how much funding assistant, associate, full professors acquire and how this has changed over time.

EDIT: Independently from the discussion in the comments about postdoc/assistant professor definition, to me the answer/insight is if the drift from federal to corporate/philantropical funding is siginificantly reducing the chances of PhD's, assistant professors to acquire funding and most of the non-federal funding goes to universities/full professors? Any statistics/experience would be interesting here to me.

1
source | link

Do postdocs have reasonable chances to acquire non-federal funding in the US?

This article argues that the portion of federal funding is decreasing more and more in the US while funding by corporate and philantropical sources is increasing within the last decade.

enter image description here

I'm wondering if this shift/drift, which looks quite significant in the chart to me, means a much worse likelihood of success for postdocs trying to acquire funding, due to the fact that most postdocs have no reputation/infrastructure (offices, labs, staff,...) and are unlikely to be chosen/visible by/to corporate/philantropical sources.

Is the situation as I imagine it myself or did maybe postdocs never had high likelihood of federal funding in the US (which would be very different to europe) and the competition is not increasing drastically with less federal funding. I would like to see some numbers/statistics, no common sense/experience arguing. I hope there are maybe also statistics how much funding assistant, associate, full professors acquire and how this has changed over time.