Feds in science jobs - underpaid?

[Anonymous]

I have been doing rihiiiiisome poking around on the federal salary database and notice that the scientist positions seem to be underpaid. Currently work as a postdoctoral fellow and I am planning nect steps. In checking out salaries, I find that 15 years after graduating from college, people in agencies like TSA and USPTO are at high GS 14 level but those in the science and tech positions are at positions equivalent to GS 13. This is based on a very small sample size of acquaintances so I am be entirely off the mark.

Is this true in your experience. If you were hired as a fed scientist after Uour PH.D or fellowship, what grade did you come in at?

[Anonymous]

DH has two masters and did post doc work in physics/engineering. Not a phD though. He came in at a GS 9, but on their engineering scale which pays more. He is a GS 13 now. He's not interested in the GS 14 positions available (less flexible and more supervisory). He can currently choose his own projects, workload and he makes his own budget (it's multi million). GS 15 technical positions don't exist where he is. He's absolutely in love with what he does and loves his pay. If he had won the lottery, he wouldn't have quit his job.

[Anonymous]

The problem is, in most agencies, GS-14 and GS-15 are managers. Scientists want to stay technical, which is a GS 13 or below, sometimes a 14.

I am a senior scientist -- I make more than a GS 15. But, in the govt, as a 14 step 10 I am at about 140; as a 13 step one (where they hire at) is 95K. So, if I were to join the agency I support, they would bring me in at 70K less than my current salary.

[Anonymous]

I'm a scientist at NASA Goddard. People coming in after doing a postdoc elsewhere usually come in as a GS-13. Many are able to get to GS-14 after about 5 years, either because of more management role or just as they take on increased responsibilities and roles. Those who get to GS-15 either do that through management or eventually as a senior scientist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH has two masters and did post doc work in physics/engineering. Not a phD though. He came in at a GS 9, but on their engineering scale which pays more. He is a GS 13 now. He's not interested in the GS 14 positions available (less flexible and more supervisory). He can currently choose his own projects, workload and he makes his own budget (it's multi million). GS 15 technical positions don't exist where he is. He's absolutely in love with what he does and loves his pay. If he had won the lottery, he wouldn't have quit his job.

This sounds great. What agency is he at?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a scientist at NASA Goddard. People coming in after doing a postdoc elsewhere usually come in as a GS-13. Many are able to get to GS-14 after about 5 years, either because of more management role or just as they take on increased responsibilities and roles. Those who get to GS-15 either do that through management or eventually as a senior scientist.

There's a route for senior scientists to get to a GS 14 or 15 at NASA? Do they have to be supervisory? The main critique of supervisory roles is that it takes away from their actual work and bogs them down in red tape and budgetary issues.

[Anonymous]

I am a non-supervisory GS-14 at NASA, in that I do not do performance reviews for anyone and am not designated as a supervisor. But I, and most of the other non-supervisory gs-14s I know, do spend a lot of time dealing with budget things, writing and winning proposals to fund our research, managing students and postdocs, and having management-type roles on missions. Definitely less time in the lab than when I was a GS-13!

Most of the non-supervisory GS-15s already put in their time as line management for some years, before stepping back out to be senior scientists.

[Anonymous]

I came in as a 13-1 at NIH about 6 years after finishing my PhD. Had been a postdoc there for five years prior. I'm fairly confident I'll move up within 5-10 years and am totally happy going into administration. I also have a loan repayment award which adds to my total compensation package. That, plus great work-life balance and doing interesting, meaningful work make it a pretty good deal, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Ph.D, no post-doc, hired at 12, currently 13. At my agency, most have to become an manager to make 14 or 15 and I'm not interested.

[Anonymous]

What agency are you applying at? At NIH, most jobs for PhDs/postdocs are advertised at 11/12. You can move up to 12 within a year or two, depending on your office. These are administrative jobs. My DH came in at 12 after a postdoc and went to 13 after a year. He can go to 14 relatively easily after another couple of years, 15 will be more difficult.
If you want to continue benchwork after a PhD/postdoc and do not want to go the TT route, then the options are biologist (usually tops out at 13) or staff scientist (4-year, renewable terms, higher paid than GS but less stable).

[Anonymous]

Science pays poor in general. Like others said, you're limited to 13 unless you go supervisory. But as a topped out 13, you're probably making more than the equivalent professor who is still busting his or her ass for tenure.

Engineering pays better than science. I am disgusted by how much postdocs are paid.

[Anonymous]

Husband hired in as 12 and promoted to 13. Top option is 14 in math/Stat unless he becomes a manager; not everyone gets a 14 either. Still makes more than he did teaching college, even with the COL in the DC area.

Many of his younger coworkers jump ship after a few years to private industry, where they can make more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What agency are you applying at? At NIH, most jobs for PhDs/postdocs are advertised at 11/12. You can move up to 12 within a year or two, depending on your office. These are administrative jobs. My DH came in at 12 after a postdoc and went to 13 after a year. He can go to 14 relatively easily after another couple of years, 15 will be more difficult.
If you want to continue benchwork after a PhD/postdoc and do not want to go the TT route, then the options are biologist (usually tops out at 13) or staff scientist (4-year, renewable terms, higher paid than GS but less stable).

NIH postdocs aren't FTEs. The pay is more like a 9/10, though the benefits are good. Most aren't hired as FTEs after-if they are, it's as a research fellow, where they often take home less due to increased taxes. I lucked out to move to a real FTE job as a
13 (PP above).

[Anonymous]

OP here: sorry for the typos in my original post. I am in at a DoD lab. A senior colleague who has worked over 40 years is at GS 15 equivalent without having done a day of managing anybody. Are the rules different in DoD labs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Science pays poor in general. Like others said, you're limited to 13 unless you go supervisory. But as a topped out 13, you're probably making more than the equivalent professor who is still busting his or her ass for tenure.

Engineering pays better than science. I am disgusted by how much postdocs are paid.

It depends on the field (of science), and the application. If it is a pure research job, it will not pay well. In the applied research arena, it can pay quite well. I am in applied research; my customers are DoD/IC entities. I supply the technical expertise to make functional prototypes which can then be engineered to make operational systems.

I miss the more basic research, but, frankly, they can hire someone right out of school for half my salary to do it. I am usually using my experience to let them know what will and will not work, and finding simplifying assumptions that are valid for the CONOPs, and will allow us to fulfill the mission.