The week of September 21-25, 2020 is National Postdoc Appreciation Week, a time for institutions and supervisors to express their appreciation for the contributions postdoctoral scholars make in a variety of areas from research to teaching and mentoring. 

As a quick refresher, a postdoctoral scholar (postdoc) is an individual with an advanced degree (Ph.D.) engaged in a period of additional training to build the skills and experiences necessary to launch themselves into an independent career of their choosing.

While traditionally a postdoc was considered the necessary "next step" in one's training progression to ultimately obtain a faculty position, postdocs move into a variety of careers after their time in postdoctoral training.

​The goal of postdoctoral offices are to support these scholars in their career and professional development. However, many postdoc offices are under-resourced to provide this much needed support to a critical component of the scientific workforce. Many are offices of 1-2 people responsible for supporting anywhere from 300 to 1,200+ postdocs. I believe one of the missing pieces allowing postdoc offices to obtain additional support is to better measure and report on the contributions postdocs make to the academic and research institutions that employ them. 

Postdoctoral scholars contribute much to the scientific enterprise and the research and teaching missions of universities.

Despite the varied and important roles they play, postdocs are often overlooked as a key constituency by administrators and leaders at research and academic institutions in the United States and globally.

I believe that measuring postdoctoral impact on the teaching/training and research/scholarship endeavors of institutions will better illuminate the key role they play in research organizations.
​I also hope this process leads to increased institutional support for the postdoc population.

​The first task is to identify metrics that would be useful to gauge the impact postdocs have on their field, lab, peers, students, and university. Some metrics could include:

1. Papers published (# of papers published, # of 1st-authored papers published)
2. Students mentored (# of students mentored, dissertation/thesis supervision of graduate/undergraduate students)
3. Teaching (# hours lectured, # courses taught, # of students taught, course evaluations)
4. Grant money (% of contribution to advisor’s research grant applications, Co-Principal Investigator (PI) roles on grants, postdoc fellowships received)
5. Contribution to lab and project management (assisting their PI supervisors in managing experiments/projects/timelines, freeing up PIs to focus on other tasks) 
6. Patents filed, intellectual property developed
7. Service performed for the university (sitting on various committees, serving in a leadership role for a campus organization like a postdoctoral association)

​Their are also structural challenges & barriers to measuring postdoc impact in these domains. 

1. Publications are often not published until 6-12 months after the first manuscript submission. Thus, a metric of publications will show postdoc impact in the past and not current impact. Conference presentations and preprint publications by postdocs may be additional metrics one could collect to gauge short-term scholarly impact. 
2. Postdoc mentoring of students is often not formalized (or even officially allowed). While a postdoc may contribute substantially to helping a graduate student in their dissertation work, the Principal Investigator (PI) of the lab (the postdoc's supervisor) is the mentor of record.
3. Regarding teaching, postdocs are often not allowed to be “instructor of record” on courses (except in the case of the small number of teaching postdocs, whose job duties include primarily teaching) and are often discouraged from teaching in place of conducting research work. However, lecturing and other teaching roles postdocs perform should be measured as this contributes to the overall educational mission of universities.
4. In the area of grants, postdocs often contribute substantially to grant applications, whether that be in the form of preliminary data they collect/analyze or assisting PIs in conceiving and/or writing of grant proposals. However, a postdoc cannot serve as a PI (and sometimes, depending on the policy of the training institution, Co-PI) on grant applications as they are not “faculty.” Thus, quantifying postdocs’ contribution to grant money received is complicated. There is no doubt, however, that they play a role (and sometimes substantial one) in many grant applications.
5. Measuring postdoc contributions to lab management is complex. It is the PI’s role to manage their labs. Thus, even if postdocs contribute substantially in assisting them in this role, some PIs may not feel that they can acknowledge this work as it could diminish their perceived role as the lab’s director.

​Many of the challenges of measuring and acknowledging postdoctoral contributions come down to the hierarchy of academia. Postdocs are “under” PIs whose own metrics of success largely mirror that of the postdoc. While this could suggest areas where there should be mutual benefit (both postdoc and supervisor/PI benefit from publications), there could also be cases where this situation introduces conflict. For example, a PI needs to secure external funding in their name to receive tenure at most research intensive academic institutions. Postdocs also need to show the ability (or potential) to secure external funding to transition into independent, tenure-track faculty positions. If postdocs cannot receive credit for their contributions to their supervisor’s grant application(s), however, one cannot truly measure their impact in this regard. This situation can also harm postdocs’ ability to secure independent faculty positions of their own, stifling their career progression.

One immediate way to address this and that I acknowledge is occurring with many PIs is to include mention of postdoc contributions to successful grant applications in letters of reference the PIs write on their behalf. In this way, a PI can make clear that the postdoc contributed substantially to a successful research grant application and will be capable of serving as PI on their own grants if they transition to an independent faculty position of their own. 

​As the measurement of graduate student and postdoc career outcomes and progression has gained attention, so too should the measurement of postdocs’ contributions in their current roles. Standardization of the metrics used to assess postdoc contributions and impact need to be undertaken to make data robust and comparable across departments and institutions. In addition, a standardized collection method would allow data to be aggregated to quantify postdoc impact at a national or international level. 

Thus, quantifying postdoc impact will allow postdoc offices to better advocate for additional resources to support this important (but often overlooked) population. ​

​While much progress has been made in improving the working conditions and support (stipends) for postdocs in the US driven by many dedicated individuals and the efforts of the NPA, a need to move toward a more structured, data-driven approach to demonstrating their impact is needed. Only by showing the impact postdocs make can the offices who support them effectively advocate for additional institutional resources to enhance the lives and training of postdocs. By doing so, we can more effectively nurture the next generation of researchers and allow them to leverage their skills, interests, and values to improving society in the variety of careers they pursue after their postdoctoral training. 

Publications on Postdoc Impact
Bringing the lab back in: Personnel composition and scientific output at the MIT Department of Biology

Contribution of postdoctoral fellows to fast-moving and competitive scientific research

Postdocs as Mentors - When it comes to everyday mentoring and training in the sciences, postdocs are the new PIs.

Useful tools to quantify publication metrics
Pubmetric - Authorship crawler that document the publishing record for trainees and their PIs via Pubmed

Publons - Track your publications, citation metrics, peer reviews, and journal editing work in a single, easy-to-maintain profile

​SciVal - From Elsevier. Allows you to visualize your research performance, benchmark relative to peers, develop strategic partnerships, identify and analyze new, emerging research trends, and create uniquely tailored reports. 

​See also
​NC State Libraries Research Impact & Metrics Landing Page 

Academic Analytics

NPA Institutional Policy Report & Database - a great model that currently focuses on postdoc offices reporting on postdoc benefits, salaries, and numbers in addition to office size and budgets ​

Career Exploration, Personal Perspective
​
In Fall 2018, I started writing a series of pieces for the NIH Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) Student/Postdoc Blog. As these pieces are no longer accessible online, I wanted to re-share them in a continuing series NIH BEST Blog Rewind. Here, I will add some additional thoughts to what was originally authored in 2018, denoted in bold (dark red) throughout the piece.

Original Publication Date: December 2018                           NEW Perspectives, Comments, & Insights
Part of a series revisiting my NIH BEST Blog pieces. ​

Update: I did end up moving into the graduate/postdoc career & professional development career. Since January 2019, I manage the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs at NC State University. Read more about my transition from postdoc to postdoc affairs professional in this POSTDOCket piece here.
​
I have also taken on leadership positions with the NPA & GCC. Both organizations have bright futures ahead. The NPA recently announced the hire of a new Executive Director and GCC membership is rapidly growing (~15% increase in membership since 2018)...now with over 450 members. It is a great time to get involved in both organizations either as a postdoc (NPA) or budding career/development professional (GCC). ​

Original Publication Date: November 2018                           NEW Perspectives, Comments, & Insights
Part of a series revisiting my NIH BEST Blog pieces. ​

Is a postdoc worth it? It can be, if you use it strategically.

Recently, I came across a passage in the book Educated: A Memoir by Tara Westover that I think perfectly captures the nature of finding one’s place in the world. When talking about all the decisions that go into making a life, Westover makes the following analogy:

“Decided. Choices (that people make, together and on their own), numberless as grains of sand, had layered, compressed, coalescing into sediment, then into rock, until all was set in stone.”

The Fundamental Post-Ph.D. Choice Point: To Postdoc or Not? 
Truly, the choices we make throughout our life ultimately shape and define us. Some choices may seem small and trivial (grains of sand) but they compound over time. The choice to pursue a postdoc is certainly not a trivial one but some of the experiences that accompany it can add up to have an impact on one’s career trajectory, often in unexpected ways.

The most pressing decision for the majority of late-stage graduate students is whether to pursue postdoctoral training. Long the default for those Ph.D.s interested in faculty careers in academia, the postdoctoral fellowship, especially in the sciences has become ubiquitous and a virtually expected next step after graduate school. According to NSF data, ~61% of US life science Ph.D.s with post graduation commitments are pursuing a postdoc and ~38% of all Ph.D. recipients surveyed pursue a postdoc. Even for graduate students interested in careers in industry, many are told that employers want to see postdoctoral experience before offering them a job. Nevertheless, graduate students should definitely consider the value of a postdoc to their own career goals before committing to a few (or often more) years of training.

Why Pursue the Postdoc Path? Pluses & Minuses
If you love doing research, a postdoc can seem like a great thing as there are no longer pesky classes and dissertation committee meetings that go along with being a Ph.D. student. Rather, a research postdoc is all about the science. However, there are clear short-term financial costs to pursuing a postdoc as a well-publicized 2017 study found, estimating that 15 years into their careers, former postdoc researchers earned a total salary ~20% less than non-postdocs across a variety of sectors (non-tenure track academic research, government/nonprofit, industry). While this number is somewhat depressing, I am about to use a cliché but one I whole-heartedly believe in when it comes to the postdoctoral experience: it’s not all about the money.

In addition, I used my time as a postdoc to explore a variety of career options via informational interviews and on-campus sessions as part of Vanderbilt’s BEST Program: ASPIRE. I also greatly expanded my professional network by attending a variety of local and national conferences on topics ranging from Healthcare to Data Science to Neuroscience. I honed my written and oral communication by volunteering to write/blog for a variety of outlets and never saying no to an invitation to talk about my research work, which I have done at conferences, universities, on Twitter, and at a local science club in Nashville. These varied experiences have shaped who I now am. I didn’t come to this postdoc thinking all of these experiences would happen to me but they did and I am a better person for experiencing them. From these experiences, I know I can write effectively, speak publicly, organize meetings, work as part of a team, and plan and execute a variety of projects, all skills that will be valuable in whatever career I pursue post postdoc.

A Postdoc Can Provide Life Flexibility 
Furthermore, and while it will vary from lab to lab, I have to say that my postdoctoral experience has also given me the ability to live a flexible life. I can take a few weeks off between Christmas and New Years to visit with my parents and sisters, take a week off in the summer to go to the beach with family and friends, or take a Friday off to get a jumpstart on a weekend trip. As long as one's work gets done, a good postdoc advisor won't micromanage your working hours. Thus, a postdoc can offer a good deal of autonomy and flexibility, albeit compensating you at a lower rate than the market might allow. Importantly, postdoc compensation is improving, as measured by NIH NRSA postdoc stipend levels.  

​While the above quote referencing the time/money trade-off is certainly not always true, I feel like my position as a postdoc, while not giving me the best monetary reward, gave and still gives me a lot of flexibility and a good work-life balance. It is hard to put a price on that. As my parents get older, I am keenly aware that I should take the time when I can to visit them and other family members. My choice to do a flexible postdoc (as opposed to working in the corporate, 9-5 always “on” world) has given me the ability to make time for family.

Moving to any of these hubs will greatly increase your opportunity to find employment after your postdoc and by doing your postdoc in these metro areas, you will be able to actively network with individuals working in the life science and technology sectors. Obviously, COVID-19 will limit your ability to physically network with most anyone over the coming months but many regional groups such as MassBio and the NC Biotechnology Center are currently offering virtual networking opportunities. 
Finally, living in your desired geographic area as a postdoc will allow you to rapidly act on job market opportunities. If a position opens up and they want you to start in a few weeks, you will already have made the move and will be ready to hit the ground running in your new position. ​

Transitioning Out of the Postdoc​
Obviously, a postdoc should eventually come to an end and I think one shouldn’t stay too long in a postdoc. What "too long" is will vary by field but I would argue that if you don't feel like you are building new skills and growing as a researcher, you should start planning to transition out of the postdoc. It is easy to get complacent but the postdoc position should be a temporary “stepping stone” to bigger and better things. 

Further References & Readings:
Career Conversations for Researchers in the Age of COVID-19 from UCSF's Office of Career & Professional Development

The National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) has laid out 6 core competencies around effective postdoctoral training: 
​1. Discipline-specific conceptual knowledge
2. Research skill development
3. Communication skills
4. Professionalism
5. Leadership and management skills
6. Responsible conduct of research

NPA Postdoc Career Resources

Postdoc Academy Resources, including those around succeeding as a postdoc

More from the Reflections Blog:
NIH BEST Blog Rewind: Pondering the "next step" as a late-stage postdoctoral fellow
​​Career Exploration 101
​Post Ph.D.-Career Plans: Consider the Possibilities 
The End of Work as We Know It: How an increasingly automated world will change everything
​Why you should get involved in things outside the lab/work

I am not going to provide much detail on the mechanics of the job search or the importance of career exploration as those areas have been covered by others, and in other posts by yours truly (see also Start Here on this blog).

​See also these excellent resources from UCSF's Office of Career & Professional Development to help you in career exploration as well as planning for academic & nonacademic careers. 

Getting Personal
I want to make this series of posts personal, which will be challenging given my personality. I am going outside my comfort zone of sharing my feelings/desires/dreads so that maybe others on this journey realize that it is more than OK to do so. I think discovering and accepting your feelings in addition to taking a logical approach to the “pros” and “cons” of a position is critical to making a holistic choice that will be good for your soul.

Personal Experience on the Faculty Job Market + New Advice & Insights
I knew through following academic and higher education news sources that landing a tenure-track faculty position was going to be tough but my experience applying last fall (2017) really opened my eyes. I applied to 26 positions that I thought fit my research interests and expertise (neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience), mostly in psychology departments at R1 research universities. I had a total of 1 on-campus interview and it was for the job description I felt least fit my expertise.

I think this result reflects two things:
1) landing a tenure-track job at an R1 is VERY difficult and
2) trying to predict which departments you think would be interested in you is virtually impossible. As with landing any job, the academic job hunt is all about “fit” and if you aren’t the right fit at the right time, you can’t expect to land the job.

Read more about my personal experience on the faculty job market in Tales From the Academic Job Market.

How can you be more proactive in planning for the faculty job market?
Don't dismiss conducting informational interviews with assistant professors at a variety of institutions to learn what made them successful in their job search. In addition, you can use these info interviews to learn more about what it is like working at a liberal arts college, Masters comprehensive university, etc... You may find being faculty at a certain type of institution best fits your skills and interests. 

Also, read our Survey-based Analysis of the Academic Job Market paper now published in eLife to learn more about metrics associated with successfully receiving a faculty job offer. 

Over the course of this blog series, I hope to share my experiences in finding a landing place after the postdoc. I am going to try to be fairly open about the struggles and doubts I experience and hopefully offer perspective on finding happiness and purpose in life. I think it is ingrained in American culture that your career defines you. New people you meet invariably ask, “What do you do?” to get a sense of who you are and what you value. This is unfortunate. You are so much more than a job or even a career (acknowledging the distinction that often gets drawn there). 

Further Reading
Career Management: The Sunk-Cost Fallacy!

The Journey from Postdoc to Working in Postdoctoral Affairs

More from the Reflections Blog:
Career Exploration Series
Start Here

Career Exploration Series (PassioInventa)

​
Learn more about BEST
BEST: Implementing Career Development Activities for Biomedical Research Trainees
This book ​provides an instructional guide for institutions wanting to create, supplement or improve their career and professional development offerings. Each chapter provides an exclusive perspective from an administrator from the 17 Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST) institutions. The book can aid institutions who train graduate students in a variety of careers by teaching faculty and staff how to create and implement career development programming, how to highlight the effectiveness of offerings, how to demonstrate that creating a program from scratch is doable, and how to inform faculty and staff on getting institutional buy-in.
This is a must-have for graduate school deans and faculty and staff who want to implement and institutionalize career development programming at their institutions. It is also ideal for graduate students and postdocs.

Perspective Piece, Opinion (Part 2 of 2)

Last week, I discussed the effects of temporary visa holders in the academic workplace. This week, I turn to discuss the H-1B visa system in more detail and how for-profit employers utilize this mechanism for better and worse. ​

H-1B Visa Overview
The majority of advanced degree holders working in the United States (US) are sponsored under an H-1B visa for "specialty occupations". The program is administered through the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) and a job must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation:

• Bachelor’s or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum entry requirement for the position
• The degree requirement for the job is common to the industry or the job is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree
• The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position
• The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree.

​Currently there is a "cap" on H-1Bs granted each year to for-profit companies and a lottery is used to allot the 85,000 visas available to advanced degree holders. The H-1B pool open to all applicants is 65,000 with an additional 20,000 visas available only to those with at least a Master's degree.

The success rate of "winning" the lottery hovers around 25% to 35%.
An employer who seeks to hire a foreign worker on an H-1B visa, then, must literally take a chance on them by entering a lottery to be assigned a visa for said employee. Even then, a company's paperwork might be filed improperly and the H-1B denied (a more common process in recent years as these visas have been scrutinized in more detail). All these steps require time and money to navigate, which dis-incentivizes companies from pursuing this path for a potential employee. 

However, university and nonprofits are exempt from the H-1B cap (see last week's post for more on this), encouraging many nonimmigrant advanced degree holders to occupy positions in these institutions after completing their schooling. 

Changes to H-1B Selection Process for Fiscal Year 2021
USCIS has taken some action to make the H-1B application process more efficient. This includes allowing employers to pre-register for a potential visa without the full paperwork being required until they have been notified whether they have been selected in the lottery. This change took effect for fiscal year 2021.
​Another significant change for this fiscal year includes one that seeks to increase the odds for advanced degree (Master's or Ph.D.) holders being selected.

• The 65,000 general visa pool will be drawn first
• Followed by the 20,000 advanced degree pool draw

This order is the reverse of the previous process and USCIS estimates that it will result in an increase of up to 16% (or 5,340 workers) in the number of selected petitions for H-1B beneficiaries with a Master’s degree or higher from a US institution of higher education.  

Immigrants & the Economy
The main goal of the US's H-1B program is to fill gaps in the US workforce. 

There is certainly debate around whether encouraging more advanced degree holders to enter the US has a positive impact on the economy. Some reports make a strong case for the value of advanced degree immigrants: showing they contribute more in taxes than they consume in benefits and their presence correlates with a higher number of American jobs. Others refute the interpretation of these data.

Indeed, there are many reports of how the H-1B visa program is being used to supplant American workers with visa holders, often with a cost savings to the employer.  

H-1B Prevailing Wage and Fair Compensation 
H-1B sponsored employees must be paid the "prevailing wage" for their work ​area, level of expertise, and geographic location of work. This presumably prevents a company from using the H-1B visa as a source of cheaper labor than hiring a US citizen. However, this determination of prevailing wage is open to much interpretation and abuse. In fact, some have argued and data have shown that H-1B employees at for-profit companies make lower salaries than their peers and that this mechanism is used to, potentially, suppress wages for all employees.

Furthermore, outsourcing Informational Technology (IT) consulting companies including Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Deloitte Consulting, and Cognizant are often used to circumvent some of the prevailing wage rules that apply to H-1B visas. And these consulting firms employ large numbers of H-1B visa holders (though mostly those holding a Bachelor's Degree). In the most recent 2019 H-1B data, the four aforementioned consulting firms employed 32,357 H-1Bs...the top four other for-profit employers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, & Facebook) employed 22,202.  
 
So, how much are H-1B holders being paid?
​Data from NSF's Science & Engineering Indicators 2018 reports median income of H-1B visa holders for initial employment obtained from USCIS. Below are data taken from USCIS for fiscal years 2016 & 2017.

The relatively low earnings of life scientists probably reflects their presence in postdoctoral positions at universities...~60% postdocs are in the life sciences (see Fig 2-2 in this report). While universities and other nonprofit or governmental research institutes are exempt from the H-1B cap, they still must report H-1B information for those they employ to USCIS. Thus, this and the following data also contain salary information for H-1Bs employed at universities, non-profits, and government research institutes. 

Diving into 2019 H-1B Data from USCIS
USCIS has extensive data on those receiving H-1Bs over the past several years on its website.
Below, I present some details from the "Approved H-1B Petitions by Employer" data from 2019. First, the cap-exempt nature of nonprofit institutions, which includes universities, academic medical centers, hospitals, and government institutes and labs, results in these employers representing a majority (75%) of Ph.D. H-1B employers in 2019 data.

The USCIS H-1B data also requires employers to report median salary of the H-1B-sponsored employees. Note, this averages earnings over the full population, including those with Bachelor's degrees, Master's degrees, and Ph.D.s. Looking at these data, you can see median salaries are much higher in those working at for-profit companies.

The lower salaries for H-1B employees at university and nonprofit/governmental agencies could be the result of a a variety of factors. The most likely is that this population is heavily enriched with postdoctoral researchers, whose salaries hover around $45,000-$50,000 at most universities. 

And as most H-1B holders in for-profit companies ("industry") are working in the computer science and engineering space (~60% of all H-1B holders, see report) where salaries are rather high, it is unsurprising that their industry salaries are well over $100,000 (where the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports mean annual earnings of ~$94,000 and ~$101,000 across all employees in the computer/mathematical and engineering sectors, respectively). 

Interestingly, and supportive of the notion that job outsourcing companies may be used to suppress wages, the average median salary of H-1B holders employed by Cognizant, Tata Consultancy Services, Deloitte Consulting, and Infosys was $90,798 (+/- $14,340) versus $139,358 (+/- $8,407) employed at the four largest other for-profit employers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, & Facebook). Note, this is not a perfect comparison as the 4 outsourcing/consulting companies rarely employ Ph.D.-holders. 

Which for-profit companies employ the most H-1Bs with Ph.D.s?
Relevant to my work supporting postdoctoral researchers, who all possess Ph.D.s, I wanted to better understand which for-profit companies employ Ph.D.s on H-1B visas.

The list is dominated by big-tech (see chart, below). In fact, Google, Intel, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft employ ~56% of ALL H-1B holding Ph.D.s in for-profit companies (of those sponsoring at least 100 visas) in 2019.
​
​Indeed, an earlier report looking at occupational groups by H-1B cap status in 2010-2011 found that computer science related occupations represented ~51% of all capped (for-profit) H-1B employees, followed by those occupying engineering roles (~9%) or working in financial services (~6%). This distribution differs when looking at H-1Bs awarded in the cap-exempt category utilized by universities and nonprofits: life scientists (~28%), postsecondary teacher (23%), health practitioners (14%), and physical scientists (7%) were the most common categories.
​
Clearly, roles that focus on computer science, technology, and engineering are disproportionately represented in for-profit H-1B sponsorships. So, if you are an international student or postdoc seeking employment with a company in the United States, you should work on developing your data science, coding, and other analytical skills that are in demand.

​See these pieces and personal accounts of those who successfully transitioned to a career in data science. 

However, as a fraction of all H-1Bs employed, the Ph.D. labor pool is rather small at some of these companies. For example, only ~9% of all H-1Bs employed by Google in 2019 hold Ph.D.s and that percentage at Intel and Apple is 14% and 10%, respectively. Looking at which company H-1B employee pools are most represented by Ph.D. holders, we get a slightly different group of employers.
​
Kelly Services, which contracts with the federal government to staff a variety of roles in government agencies, has the largest percentage of its H-1B workers occupied by those with Ph.D. degrees. Several pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Genentech) appear on this list as do some companies that might be less well known to the casual Ph.D. student or postdoc: KLA Tencor and Global Foundries. 

​H-1Bs, For-Profit Companies, and Labor Market Effects
What effect does utilizing H-1Bs have on their sponsoring employers and co-workers' earnings? 
​​Much commentary has called into question whether the H-1B program is a net benefit or detriment to labor markets with some researchers describing a reduction in estimated wages and domestic employment in high tech sectors without the program.

Data looking at the effects of H-1B workers in for-profit companies suggest that payroll per employee may be slightly reduced for those companies who "win" the H-1B lottery. In addition, corporate profits are higher in those companies employing H-1Bs. Indeed, one report estimates usage of skilled H-1B holders placed in discounted prevailing wage levels, which the employer is allowed to select with little oversight or vetting, can save employers around $40,000 per employee per year (see details here). And stories of H-1B holders replacing US domestic workers in tech are plentiful. 

Whether companies actively use the H-1B program to curtail labor costs, among other complaints, is a complex question to answer, especially when comparable salary data for positions at for-profit companies is unknown. Some work has tried to address the issue, though. 

A study comparing computer scientists and electrical engineers previously on F-1 visas versus domestic workers found a reduction in salary of 6% in visa holders working in computer science but no difference in salary in the electrical engineer group. Others have found H-1B holders earn higher salaries and occupy jobs that are difficult to fill.

That study went on to show that Information Technology goods prices and output benefited from immigrant labor by between 1.9 and 2.5%, benefiting companies and consumers. This finding highlights the possibility that immigrant labor and work visas may be a net benefit for the US economy while being detrimental to the visa workers themselves. 

Paths to Citizenship & Needed Reforms
Many temporary workers on H-1B visas wish to transition to permanent residency status in the US (i.e., obtain a green card). Many for-profit employers will sponsor green card applications for their H-1B employees. Those with advanced degrees can purse the EB-2 "exceptional ability" employment-based immigration path to permanent residency. However, country-specific caps make queuing for one of these immigrant visas a long process. ​

While H-1B reform often has bipartisan support, the politics and special interests behind visa and immigration reform are complex. However, most would agree the current system doesn't work as intended and is subject to some abuse.
​
Big tech and business interests are often involved in shaping the visa and immigration reform conversation via groups such as FWD.us. The large IT outsourcing firms that employ H-1Bs have also engaged in lobbying​ to prevent changes to the H-1B system. Certainly some of these business leaders, at least partially, mean well in their efforts. But to pretend there are not vested financial interests in ensuring a steady supply of often under-paid immigrant labor, who then depend on being "in good standing" with their employer for green card sponsorship, would be naive to any impartial observer. And the long backlog for green card processing for some groups, especially Indian workers, has also been suggested by some as another way companies may "lock in" their employment for many years. These workers have little career mobility and negotiating power as they wait on their employer-sponsored green cards to process...which can take over 10 years to occur, even for those in the exceptional ability EB-2 category.  

With all this said, perhaps it is unsurprising that some have likened the current work visa system to modern-day slavery or indentured servitude (see also) as the workers' ability to remain in the US depends on their current employment with a set employer. This employer-employee power imbalance is highly problematic and may prevent visa  workers from raising any employment concerns with authorities for fear of their sponsorship being revoked. ​Reforms clearly are needed. 

Looking Toward the Future
Clearly, balancing the positive impact of temporary and immigrant workers on firm productivity and innovation with their potential negative effects on US labor markets and the well-being of the visa workers themselves is a difficult task. Diversity has been linked to greater creativity and innovation. However, the accounts referenced in this post suggest some for-profit entities utilize the H-1B and future citizen sponsorship to lock immigrant workers into roles that are underpaid with little room for advancement. 
​
While the current political climate in the US has resulted in serious changes in how the H-1B visa system operates (for better or worse; see also), most would agree that the spirit of this system is a good one: encourage high-skilled workers to bring their talents (and associated spending and tax base) to the US.

Certainly some recent changes to how H-1B visas are reviewed and approved have been good. For example, there has been a decrease in the number of H-1Bs awarded to IT outsourcing consulting firms (traditionally, the bad actors in the system) and subsequent rise in those awarded to large tech companies in recent years. 

More needs to be done to improve our H-1B visa and immigration system.
The economic and demographic consequences of not doing so are many. This includes the important effects of immigration on US population growth and workforce participation, while saying nothing about their effects on technological innovations and discoveries in STEM.  

Is America Still the Land of Opportunity?
America bills itself as the land of opportunity and many highly skilled and educated individuals from across the world come here to better their lives - to pursue the proverbial American Dream.

In addition, most (78%) Americans support high-skilled immigration to the country. However, we as a nation must do better to provide true opportunity to those who come to the US to study and work and ultimately wish to contribute their talents and abilities to the US workforce. We must also resist the influence of corporate interests and political operatives who seek to shape the work visa and immigration process to serve their own needs.

Our current processes negatively affects highly skilled and motivated individuals who have frequently trained for advanced degrees at US institutions. We as a nation have invested in these individuals and stand to gain financially for allowing them to live and work here. International trainees and workers have also made the often difficult choice of coming to this country to better their lives and, in the process, the lives of others including their current or future children and American citizens. The least we can do is create a system that helps them do so.  

Only then can we fulfill our full potential as truly the land of opportunity to all. 
​

For Further Reading
The H-1B Visa Program: A Primer on the Program and Its Impact on Jobs, Wages, and the Economy

The H-1B Visa Issue Explained

The H-1B Visa Debate, Explained

U.S. Degree? Check. U.S. Work Visa? Still A Challenge

The Pandemic’s Effects on Recruiting International STEM Trainees

Are foreign students the ‘best and brightest’? Data and implications for immigration policy

​Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market. An analysis of supply, employment, and wage trends

Is There Really a Shortage of Skilled Workers?

STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes

The Skills Gap: Is it a Myth?

Paying Skilled Workers More Would Create More Skilled Workers

Upcoming H-1B lottery gives US-based advanced degree candidates an edge over foreign degree ones

RESOURCES
USCIS H-1B Employer Hub (search for companies who have sponsored H-1B visas)
​Additional H-1B Data

​US Department of Labor H-1B Willful Violator List
              What is a willful violator?

Acknowledging my faculty career doubts and discovering alternative career paths during my postdoc 
I spent 4.5 years as a postdoc at Vanderbilt University and it was a really wonderful time. I felt I grew as a person, contributed important work to my field of neuroscience, and gained leadership experience in the Vanderbilt Postdoctoral Association. And while I went deep down the path toward obtaining a faculty position (even getting an onsite interview back in Spring 2018), in the back of my mind I had doubts about being a faculty member; that path just didn’t feel right. Having access to career/professional development programming at Vanderbilt helped me learn about other career paths for Ph.D.s.

I now work in career and professional development helping current graduate students and postdocs at North Carolina State University. You can read more about my personal career exploration journey and transition to postdoc affairs in my series of NIH BEST blog posts.